1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1546/2009 Hajari Ram Bishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 20.04.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr I.R. Choudhary, for the petitioner/s. Mr D.S. Rathore, for the respondents. ... Sh. D.S. Rathore has put in appearance on behalf of all the respondents, as such, service is sufficient. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the controversy involved in this petition for writ is no more res integra in view of the judgment of this Court in SBCivil Writ Petition No.3552/2001 (Adhik Lal Choudhary VS. State of Raj. & Ors.). In the case aforesaid this Court held that Rule 10.2 of the Rules of 1995 was framed ignoring the provisions contained in Rule 179 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, that provides for grant of pension even to temporary employees, and thus the sub-Rule (2) of Rules of 1995 was declared ultra virus to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On basis of judgment above, in the case of Rajendra Nath Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and others (SBCWP No.1288/2003) and Ram Pratap vs. State of Rajasthan and others (SBCWP No.1719/2001), this Court directed the Government of Rajasthan to determine pension and all other pensionary benefits of the employees of the Directorate of Agriculture Marketing from the date of their initial appointment. The 2 judgment passed by this Court in Rajendra Nath Sharma and Ram Pratap referred above stood affirmed by a Division Bench by rejecting the appeals preferred by the State Government. In the instant matter, the petitioner was employed on 24.06.1968, but the respondents are providing pension and other post retiral benefits to the petitioner as per provisions of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1995, i.e. apparently illegal in view of the judgment of this Court in Adhik Lal Chaudhary (supra) and other matters, references of those are given above. Accordingly, this petition for writ stands allowed. The respondents are directed to determine pension and all other post retiral benefits to the petitioner in light of the directions given by this Court in the case of Adhik Lal Chaudhary. Necessary modifications is also required to be made in the Pension Payment Order issued by the respondents. The petitioner is also declared for all arrears accruing as a consequent to revision of his pension in view of the directions above. The execution of the directions above is required to be made within a period of three months from today. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '