Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Devadutt Kamat, with Mr. Aditya Bhat, Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG with Mr.Abhimanyu Singh, Ms.Akshiti, Singhvi & Ms. Pratyushi Mehta, Mr. Kuldeep Mathur
For the Respondent:Mr. N.M.Lodha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Mr. V.D.Dadhich & Mr. Aniket Tater, Mr. Vivek Shrimali, Dr. Nupur Bhati

Based on the provided legal document, the following key points emerge:

1. The court has declared sub-rule (ix) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 2010 unconstitutional because it violates the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This sub-rule previously denied pension benefits to employees of aided institutions appointed prior to the promulgation of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Contributory) Pension Rules, 2005, at par with government employees under the Pension Rules of 1996 (!) (!) .

2. The court has clarified that employees appointed before the introduction of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Contributory Pension) Rules, 2005, who are covered under the Pension Rules of 1996, are entitled to opt for pension benefits. These employees must deposit the provident fund they have already drawn, with interest, within a specified period, failing which they will lose the benefit (!) .

3. The court has recalled the order that declared Rule 5(ix) unconstitutional and has emphasized that the subsequent amendment to Rule 5(ix) (which makes employees ineligible for pension and aligns them with the rules governing contributory provident fund) was not considered at the time of the original order. The court has allowed the respondents to amend their petitions to challenge the vires of the amended rule (!) (!) .

4. The court has reiterated that the earlier decision upholding the vires of Rule 5(ix) was not brought to its notice, and the order under review is to be restored to its original position, permitting the respondents to challenge the vires of the amended Rule 5(ix) (!) (!) .

5. The court has highlighted the importance of considering the law in force at the time of the order and has pointed out that the order declaring Rule 5(ix) unconstitutional was based on the law as it existed then, not on the amended version (!) (!) .

6. The court has also discussed the legal principles related to the doctrine of merger, emphasizing that an order dismissing a special leave petition without reasons is not a speaking order and does not attract the doctrine of merger. Conversely, if reasons are provided, the order may be considered a speaking order and could have implications for subsequent proceedings (!) (!) .

7. The maintainability of review petitions after the dismissal of SLPs by the Supreme Court has been examined. It has been clarified that such review petitions are maintainable unless the order is a detailed, reasoned order that constitutes a declaration of law, in which case the doctrine of merger may apply. In this case, the order was not considered a speaking order, so review is permissible (!) (!) .

8. The court has noted that the SLPs filed by the State of Rajasthan were dismissed after the Court expressed agreement with the reasoning of the lower court, and the order was not a detailed, independent judgment. Therefore, the order under review does not merge into the Supreme Court's order, and the review petitions are maintainable (!) (!) .

9. The court has also addressed procedural issues, including the obligation of the parties to inform the court of subsequent amendments and developments in the law, and the importance of considering the law in force at the relevant time (!) (!) .

10. Finally, the court has ordered that the original petitions be restored, allowing the respondents to amend their petitions to challenge the vires of the amended Rule 5(ix), and directed the refund of deposited provident fund amounts with applicable interest (!) (!) .

These points collectively reflect the court's reasoning and decisions regarding the constitutional validity of the rules, the rights of the employees to pension benefits, and the procedural aspects related to review and appeal processes.