JUDGMENT :

Ravi Chirania, J.

1. By this common Order, this Court is deciding the two connected writ petitions, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1719/2024 titled as RFC Retired Officers and Employees Association and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18016/2023, titled as Roor Mal Aswal vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

2. The issue involved in both the writ petitions is common, therefore, the facts are also common and the petitioners are aggrieved by the same controversy related to the issue of withdrawal of Pension Regulations in respect of Officers and Employees of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation.

3. For deciding the controversy, the facts of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18016/2023 are taken as lead case to decide the issue as involved.

4. The brief facts, as pointed out and noted from the pleadings of the case and as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashwinee Kumar Jaiman, are that the petitioner-Roor Mal Aswal was appointed as a Deputy Manager in the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘RFC’ for short) in the year 1980 and retired from service in the year 2014 on attaining the age of superannuation. The respondent-RFC promulgated the Pension Regulations for its employees named as The Rajasthan Financial Corporation Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Pension Regulations of 1990’ for short), which were made effective from 01.04.1987.

5. The grievance of the petitioner, as raised in the prayer of the writ petition is that the respondent - RFC by the impugned notification dated 09.06.2020 (Annexure-1) notified the decision to withdraw the Pension Regulations of 1990 with retrospective effect from 21.06.2004 and declared that the employees would be entitled for the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme under the Rajasthan Financial Corporation Employees’ Provident Fund Regulations, 1958.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashwinee Kumar Jaiman, submitted that the issue of entitlement of pension to the Officers and Employees of the respondent-RFC is into litigation since the year 2004. He further submitted that in the year 2004, the respondent-RFC issued an Office order dated 12.08.2004, whereby a decision was taken to withdraw the Pension Regulations of 1990. The said Office order dated 12.08.2004 was challenged before learned Single Judge of this Court by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 870/2005 However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, against which special appeal was preferred before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The Co-ordinate Bench examined the provisions of the Pension Regulations of 1990 in the light of Section 48 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1951’ for short). For deciding the issue, the Co-ordinate Bench divided the Employees of RFC into three categories in the judgment dated 07.05.2018. The relevant paras of the judgment passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.669/2017 titled as V.K. Gupta and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and connected matters, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.669/2017 dated 07.05.2018 along with the connected appeals, are reproduced here as under:-

“The question now comes that if the order dated 12.8.2004 is set aside then what would be the consequence? The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that Pension Regulations of 1990 would remain in force. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioners because if order dated 12.8.2004 goes, the Pension Regulations of 1990 survive till its withdrawal by applying the procedure given under Section 48 of the Act of 1951. A further question would be as to how the employees would be governed, if the order dated 12.8.2004 goes. We have to take into consideration three sets of employees and, accordingly, the issue aforesaid has to be dealt with. We categorise the employees and officers of the RFC In three categories, as follows:-

Category-I

Those who re