SINGHVI, J. - (1.) ALL these petitions have been filed with a common prayer for declaration that the pension scheme notified by the Government of Rajasthan Vide Circular No. F. 4 (5) IND/11/83 dated 11. 9. 1989 will govern and apply to all employees of the Khadi & Village Industries Board, who retired on or before 28. 1. 1983. The petitioners have prayed that the respondents be directed to extend the benefits of the pension scheme to the petitioners. Since common question of law is involved in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by a common order.
(2.) THE facts given in all the writ petitions are more or less identical and therefore, it will be sufficient to refer to the facts given in writ petition No. 1587/90 Ram Pal Karadiya Vs. Rajasthan Khadi & Village Industries Board. Petitioner Ram Pal Karadiya was retired from the service of the Rajasthan Khadi & Village Industries Board (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Board') after 28. 1. 1983 but before 1. 9. 1988. His date of retirement has been given as 31. 1. 1988. Petitioner has stated that he has rendered satisfactory service. The respondent Board is an instrumentality of the State because it is fully controlled and managed by the State and therefore, it falls within the definition of the term "state" (other authority) as used in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Respondent Board has decided to extend the benefits of pension to its employees and for that purpose a resolution dated 28. 1. 1983 was passed by the Board and recommendations were sent to the Government to allow benefits of the pension scheme to the employees of the respondent Board. This resolution of the Board was considered and vide its order dated 11. 9. 1989, the Government extended the benefit of the pension scheme to the employees of the Board w. e. f 1. 9. 1988. Since the petitioners had retired between 28. 1. 83 to 1. 9. 1988, the benefit of the pension Scheme has not been extended to the petitioners. This action of the respondents is arbitrary and has resulted in hostile discrimination against the petitioner. Petitioner has stated that the date of 1. 9. 1988 has been fixed by the respondents without any reason and rationality and therefore, the benefit of pension scheme should be extended to all the employees of the Board who have retired on or before 1. 01. 1983 when the Board had first taken the decision for extension of the pension scheme to its employees. Petitioner Ratan Singh had retired from service of the Board on 30. 09. while Hanuman Sahay was retired on 31. 3. 1988. Shyamlal had retired from service on 30. 9. 1987. Respondent No. 2 State of Rajasthan has not filed reply to the writ petition, but the respondent Board has filed separate replies in all the writ petitions. The contents of the replies are same and therefore, reference to the reply filed in Writ Petition No. 1587/90 will be made. In its reply, the respondent Board has stated that it is not a "state" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Regarding resolution dated 28. 1. 1983, it has been stated that the respondent Board had not taken any decision to give pension to its employees, but only a permission had been granted for sending proposals of pension scheme to the Government. The Government approved the scheme and then conveyed its approval to the Board vide communication dated 11. 9. 1989. By that order the pension scheme has been made applicable to the employees of the respondent Board w. e. f. 1. 9. 1988. Regarding fixation of the date 1. 9. 1988, the respondent Board has stated that some dated had to be fixed for the purpose of extension of the benefit of pension scheme and the Government is fully competent to fix the date. This date has been fixed keeping in view the fact that the Government had taken decision in the year 1989. In the additional pleas, the respondent Board has alleged that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and concealment of facts. It is stated that the petitioners have already received pensionary benefits and they have accepted C. P. F. amount.
(3.) A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner, wherein the petitioner has stated that the respondent Board is a "state" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner has then stated that there is no nexus or reasonableness in fixing the date of application of pension scheme, as 1. 9. 1988. Merely because the Government had taken more than 6 years in taking decision, the petitioner and other similarly situated persons cannot be put to prejudice. So far as the State is concerned, it has also filed a reply to the writ petitions, sum and substance of the reply filed by the State is that according to it also, the Khadi & Village Industries Board is not the "state" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It has admitted that the Khadi Board had decided to sanction the sending of proposal to the State Government for giving benefit of pension scheme to the employees of the Board on the patern of Karnataka State Board. After considering the proposal of the Khadi Board, the Government decided to implement the pension scheme for the employees of the Board w. e. f 1. 9. 1988. The date of 1. 9. 1988 has been fixed because the Revised Pay Scale Rules have also been made effective from 1. 9. 1988. According to the respondent-State of Rajasthan the petitioners cannot claim that they have been discriminated. The first question which arises for determination is as to whether Khadi and Village Industries Board is an agency or instrumentality of the State and as to whether it comes within the scope of the term "other authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is thus amenable to writ jurisdiction. Khadi & Village Industries Board has been set up under the provisions of the Rajasthan Khadi & Village Industries Board Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as "1955 Act" ). Chapter I of the Act contains the definition clauses. Chapter II contains provisions regarding establishment and constitution of Rajasthan Khadi & Village Industries Board. Section 3 which falls in Chapter II provides that the Government is required to establish Rajasthan Khadi & Village Industries Board by issuing a notification in the offical gazette. The Chairman of the Board is required to be a non-official to be nominated by the State Government. 12 other members are to be appointed by the State Government, of whom alleast 8 should be non-official members. The non-official members can elect the Vice-Chairman from amongst themselves. The functions of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman have been specified in Section 6. Section 8-A provides for appointment of financial Advisor of the Board by the State Government. That person must not be a member of the Board. Section 9 empowers the Government to appoint Secretary of the Board. The resignation of the member of the Board can be accepted by the State Government. Section 13 empowers the State Government to remove any member of the Board other than an ex-officio member. Section 17 authorises the State Government to dissolve the Board with the previous approval of the State Legislative Assembly and by issuing notification in the official gazatte. Section 18 specifies the functions of the Board. These functions relate to encouragement and assistance in running of the Khadi and Village Industries, to organise co-operative societies for Khadi and Village Industries, to conduct training centres and to trained people at these centres outside the State in Khadi and Village Industries, to arrange for the supply of raw materials, tools and implements for Khadi and Village Industries and for sale of the finished products, to endeavour,to educate public opinion and to cultivate in the public a liking and bais for Khadi and Village Industries and for the utilization of produce of such industries and to undertake and encourage research etc. The Office of the Board is required to be at the Head Quarters of the Government. Pay and conditions of service of the Secretary of the Board and the Financial Advisor are required to be fixed by the State Government. The State Government is empowered to transfer property for the use and management by the Board. The Budget of the Board is required to be submitted by the State Government and is required to be sanctioned by the Government. Annual Report of the Board is required to be prepared and submitted by the State Government. Similarly, other reports are also required to be submitted by the State Government. The Accounts and audit reports are required to be placed before the State Legislature. Section 35 of the Act empowers the State Government to issue instructions on the policies. It is, therefore, clear that the State Government has wide and pervasive administrative control over the functioning of the Board. It has power to give directions to the Board on the policy matters. The activities of the Board are for the benefit of the rural masses. Thus, the Board undertakes the activities, which would normally be required to be undertaken by the State. The Board, therefore, clearly discharges the functions, which are akin to the activities of the State and, therefore, in my opinion, the respondent Board is an agency/instrumentality of the State and is amenable to writ jurisdiction as it comes within the scope of other authorities used in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. ;