JUDGMENT

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

1. State of Rajasthan has preferred this Civil Appeal to assail the judgment and order dated 19.3.2004 in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.136/1995. By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the Second Appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and decreed the Suit of Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) with a finding that Respondent No.1 had been illegally made to superannuate on 19.6.1974 at the age of 55 years, as prescribed under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1951’). The High Court has also declared that Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) was entitled to continue in service upto the age of 58 years, i.e., the age of retirement as per the Central Civil Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’). The consequent benefits like pay, increments and other service benefits have also been granted to Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff).

2. The essential facts relevant for deciding the issue raised in this appeal are not in dispute as indicated hereinafter. Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) was appointed initially in the State of Ajmer and was governed by service conditions in the Regulations. The State of Ajmer was a Centrally Administered Part ‘C’ State till its integration with the State of Rajasthan w.e.f. 01.11.1956. Respondent No.1 was absorbed in the services of the State of Rajasthan from that date as Cane Development Assistant. Thus, his service at the time of re- organisation came to be governed generally by Rules of 1951. As provided under these Rules, Respondent No.1 was made to retire on attaining the age of 55 years on 19.6.1974.

3. Respondent No.1 filed Suit No.89/1976 at Jaipur claiming that he was illegally retired at the age of 55 years and also sought a decree that he is entitled to continue in service till 30.6.1977 under the Regulations and was entitled to consequential benefits of pay, increments, seniority, promotions etc. On contest made by the State of Rajasthan, the Suit was dismissed with a finding that the services of Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) were governed by the Rules of 1951 which prescribed the age of retirement as 55 years.

4. On facts, there was no dispute at any stage of the Suit that Respondent No.1 was entitled to exercise option under Rule 11 of Rajasthan Services (Protection of Service Conditions) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1957’) and he exercised that option and elected to be governed, as regards leave and pension, by the rules applicable to him immediately before the appointed day, i.e., the Regulations in place of the Rules of 1951. The relevant part of Rule 11 is as follows :

“11. Leave and Pension Rules.-As regards leave and pension a Government servant may exercise option of electing either the rules applicable to him immediately before the appointed day or rules incorporated in the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. ... … … …”

5. The learned Munsif, however, came to the view that the option given by the Plaintiff related only to leave and pension and not to retirement or age of retirement. He came to such a view because Rule 11 begins with the words – “As regards leave and pension” and omits to mention - “age of retirement”.

6. Respondent No.1’s Regular First Appeal No.192/1980 came to be dismissed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 17.12.1994 and the view of the Trial Court was upheld. Second Appeal preferred by Respondent No.1 was, however, allowed by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 19.3.2004.

7. A perusal of the judgment and order under appeal shows that the High Court has noticed the relevant facts correctly and, on the basis of admitted facts, has decided the question of law in favour of Respondent No.1 by holding that the option in respect of leave and pension exercised by Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) made the Regulations applicable to his service conditions relating to pension and, therefore, he