JUDGMENT

M.N. Bhandari, J. - Heard on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which is not seriously opposed by learned counsel for the non-appellant. We find reasons for the condonation of delay. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. A writ petition was filed by the petitioner-non-appellant to challenge the action of the appellants-State respondent for withdrawing the order for pensionary benefits for counting the past service rendered with the Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. between 07.07.1982 to 29.07.1989. The writ petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge, though, at one stage, the matter went up to the Division Bench. The appellant- State passed fresh order in pursuance to the direction of Division Bench in Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.773/2015, decided vide order dated 27.07.2016. The State Government denied the benefit of past service for pensionary benefits and the order aforesaid was assailed by the petitioner-non-appellant.

3. It was stated that the petitioner-non-appellant was initially appointed by the Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd., where he worked till 29.07.1989. He appeared in the selection conducted by the RPSC. On remaining successful, he was appointed by appellant-Department. He resigned from Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. in consonance to the rules. Since application for selection to the RPSC was sent through proper channel, there was approval to appear in the selection and, on appointment, to join the service in the State Government. The State Government taking aforesaid into consideration, passed order for the pensionary benefits by counting the period of past service rendered with Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. At the subsequent stage, the order was withdrawn though it was in consonance to rule 25(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short "the Rules of 1996) read with Appendix IX to the Rules of 1996.

4. The similarly placed Officer namely Shri N.K. Mishra was also extended the benefit of past service for determination of the pensionary benefits, thus discrimination was caused in the case of petitioner-non-appellant by withdrawing the order. The learned Single Judge, accordingly, allowed the writ petition for pensionary benefits after counting the past service.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General Shri Shyam Arya submits that the petitioner-non-appellant joined the State Service after tendering resignation from the Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. In view of the above, the petitioner-non-appellant was not extended pensionary benefits after counting past service rendered with Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. The learned Single Judge failed to make proper interpretation of Rule 25(2) of the Rules of 1996 read with Appendix IX. In view of the above, the impunged order deserves to be set aside.

6. It is further stated that the case of the petitioner was not comparable with that of Shri N.K. Mishra. It is, no doubt, true that past services rendered by Shri N.K. Mishra with Rajasthan State Sports Council have been counted for pensionary benefits but it is by invoking Rule 14 under Chapter 2 of the Rules of 1996. Shri N.K. Mishra was an international player of Volleyball thus falling in the special category hence as per Rule 14, benefits was given. It could not have been claimed by the petitioner as Government was having discretionary powers to extend the special benefit.

7. In view of the above also, the petitioner-non-appellant is not entitled to the benefits claimed in the writ petition. The prayer is accordingly to set aside the judgment of learned Single Judge.

8. The appeal has been opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner-non-appellant Mr. Shobhit Tiwari. He submits that the petitioner was extended pensionary benefits after counting past service in view of Rule 25(2) read with Appendix IX. It provi