Point of Law: It is settled proposition of law that provisions are required to be read as they exist.

ORDER :

I.A.No.01/2023 :-

Mr. Tak, the petitioner present in person submitted that having attained 80 years of age, he has already reached twilight of his life and hence, he would like to see that the issue flagged by him is brought to its logical end. While submitting that the controversy involved in the writ petition lies in a very narrow compass, he prayed that the matter be heard at an early date so that not only he, even other Members who have served the Rajasthan Public Service Commission are benefited, in case this Court holds in his favour.

Considering the age of the petitioner and the controversy involved in the case, this Court deems it appropriate to give some priority to the matter.

The application for early listing is, therefore, allowed.

The matter is taken up for consideration today itself.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12910/2016:-

1. With the consent of all the parties, the matter has been heard finally.

2. The petitioner having served Jai Narayan Vyas University as a Professor was appointed as a Member of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘RPSC’).

3. The petitioner having joined as a Member on 10.11.1999 continued for six years till his engagement came to an end on 09.11.2005.

4. Service conditions, including pension payable to Chairman and Member are governed by Rajasthan Public Service Commission Regulations, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulations of 1974’).

5. It is to be noted that by way of notification dated 21.07.2015, the Regulations have been amended and retroactive affect has been given to the newly inserted/substituted provisions from 01.09.2006.

6. The petitioner feels aggrieved of the fact that in spite of the amendment in the Regulations of 1974, the State is paying him a paltry amount of Rs.500/-per month as pension, whereas as per amended regulations, he is entitled for Rs.15,000/-per annum for each year of service.

7. The petitioner has tried to persuade the respondents and even sent a notice for demand of justice, but no heed has been paid to his request.

8. The petitioner argued that the amendments which have been brought in the Regulations apply with full force to his case and therefore, he is entitled for pension of Rs. 90,000/-per annum calculated at the rate of Rs.15,000/-for each year out of six years he has remained in the Commission, as against the meagre sum of Rs.6,000/- per annum which he is currently getting.

9. Mr. Gaur, learned Additional Advocate General argued that the Regulations of 1974 have been amended with effect from 01.09.2006 and since petitioner’s tenure as Member of the Commission was over on 09.11.2005, i.e. prior to the coming into force of the amendment (on 21.07.2015), he is not entitled for the increased pension. According to him, the petitioner is rightly getting pension at the rate of Rs. 6,000/-per annum (Rs.500/-per month) according to the Regulations which existed when he retired.

10. He read Clause No.1(2) of the notification, and highlighted that amended provisions are applicable only with effect from 01.09.2006 to buttress his argument that no benefit can be claimed by the petitioner on the basis of the amendment which has been brought in clause 9 of the Regulations of 1974.

11. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Commission also opposed petitioner’s prayer.

12. Heard.

13. Provisions relevant for the present purposes are clause 1, 2 and 9 of the Regulations of 1974 as enacted on 11.05.1974 (or unamended clauses) which read thus:-

“(1) Short title, commencement and application -

(1) The Regulations may be called(sic) the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Conditions Of Service) Regulations, 1974.

(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in Official Gazette (published on 6-6-74).

(9) Pension payable to Members who were not in the Service of the Central or a State Government, etc.

(1) Subject to the provisions of these regulations, a Member, who on the date of his appointment, was not in the