OM PRAKASH BANSAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter has been heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for parties.

(2.) BY this writ petition the petitioner seeks to quash sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (Pension) Rules, 1995 (for short `1995 Rules') and to direct the respondents to calculate the qualifying service of petitioner as 33 years and 6 months instead of 24 years and 11 months and to pay the difference of pension.

(3.) IT is evident that even a temporary employee is entitled to get pension pursuant to the aforequoted Rule. Undeniably Rule 10. 2 of 1995 Rules was framed ignoring the provisions contained in Rule 179 of RSR. The artificial distinction created by State of Rajasthan is arbitrary and discriminately and violative Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise the contribution made towards CPF by the respondent, does not make any distinction for the reason that as per the scheme whatever contribution was made has to be refunded back to the employer after making deduction from the employees contribution. The employer's contribution has to be transferred towards pension fund.