JAIN, J. - (1.) THE petitioner Pensioners Action Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Action Committee) through its Secretary has filed this writ petition praying that the order dated 2. 9. 1985 whereby maximum qualifiying service has been provided may be struck off and calculation of pension may be directed to be made taking the span of 30 years for determining the maximum pension for those who retired at the age of 55 years. It has also been prayed that Rule 27 (A) (ii) (b) regarding resto ration of commuted pension be declared void and ultra vires.
(2.) SECCINCTLY stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner Action Committee are that the Rajasthan State employ ees age of retirement, pension and other benefits are governed by the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Earlier the age of retirement of all government employees other than Class IV was, 55 years and maximum benefits were admissible after competion of 30 years of service. The age of superannuation was raleised to 58 years during the period 1962-67 but the maximum benefit continued to accrue after 30 years of service. It is also alleged that vide notification dt. 2. 9. 1985, the amount of pension was ordered to be calculated on the maximum qualifying service of 33 years. Being aggrieved with the notification dated 2. 9. 1985 the peti tioner Action Committee has filed this writ petition on 14. 10. 1987. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent on 9. 8. 1988 stating inter-alia that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition after great delay. It is stated that the government servants who has already retired prior to coming into force of the impugned notification dated 2. 9. 1985 cannot challenge it, since the same is not applicable to them. It is also stated that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It has been stated that order dated 2. 9. 1985 is not discriminatory and the same has been issued keeping in view the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court rendered in D. S. Nakara vs. Union of India (1 ). Re-joinder to the reply has been filed on 16. 8. 1988 stating p73 that slab system was introduced for pension by virtue of Rule 256-C of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and the maximum amount payable under the said rule is to be calculated for 33 years service and the pension is to be reduced proportionately for service less than 33 years due to which vested rights of the persons retiring after 31. 3. 1979 have been affected. The petitioner Action Committee also as sailed the objection of delay and laches in filing the writ petition on the gr6und that representations remained pending with the Government. Reply to rejoinder was filed by the State on 10. 4. 1991 with calculations of pension. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the relevant provisions.
(3.) THE petitioner's claim is that its members have been retired at the age of 55 years and completed only 30 years of qualifying service, hence they are entitled for maximum pensionary benefits even on the basis of the maximum qualifying service of 30 years and the State Government cannot arbitrarily alter the rules subsequently since the pensioners had acquired a vested right so far as the maximum period of qualifying service for pension is concerned, on the date of entry into government service. Rules 256, 256a, 256b, 256c and 256d of the Rajasthan Service Rules provide the scale of pension. Rule 256 was in force upto 31. 3. 1970 and the Rules 256a, 256b, 256c and 256d came into force w. e. f. 1. 4. 1970, 31. 10. 1974, 31. 3. 1979 and 1. 9. 1986 respectively. Rule 256b which came into force on 31. 10. 1974 provides that full/maximum pension is admissible only on completing quali tying service of 33 years. This rule is continuing since then. Now the same has been challenged in the year 1987 by way of this writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner Action Committee after abnormal delay of 13 years is not entitled for any relief. It is pertinent to note that the Rule 256c whereby the formula for grant of pension was revised to calculate the pension on the basis of slab system and the formula so revised for grant of pension was made applicable to the pre 31. 3. 1979 pensioners vide impugned notification dated 2. 9. 1985. Admittedly, the members of the petitioner Action Committee have already been retired long back between the year 1978 to 1983 as per Anx.-A and got pen sion and thereafter advantage of the pension has been given retrospectively to all irrespective of their date of retirement on the basis of revised formula which stands approved by their lordships of the Supreme Court in D. S. Nakara Vs. Union of India (supra) wherein it has been observed that with a view to give higher average the scheme was liberalised to provide for average emoluments with reference to last 10 months service instead of emoluments of 36 months of service. Thus the State has given benefit of the revised formula to all irrespective of their date of retirement. A bare perusal of the chart containing the calcu lation of pension on the basis of earlier as well as revised formula, which is on record shows that every retiree has been benefited by the revised formula. The petitioner Action Commit tee has not been able to controvert the same by showing any prejudice or that any detriment caused to them by issue of the impugned order. It is needless to state that the State Government is compe tent to make rules provided they are not inconsistent but nothing has been shown from the petitioner's side to this effect. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in this writ petition and to disturb the existing procedure after a lapse of 20 years particularly when as discussed above, the members of the petitioner Action Committee who were already retired were also granted benefit from 31. 3. 1979 vide notification dated 2. 9. 1985. On merits also we don't find any case in favour of the petitioner. That apart in reply to the writ petition the State has questioned locus standi of the petitioner and denied the existence of the petitioner Action Committee. The petitioner Action Committee has placed on record only one resolution dated 17. 11. 1986 which is not a conclusive proof of its existence and continuation till date but as on merits we do not find any force in the petition, it is not necessary to decide the objection raised by the respondent. No other point has been pressed. ;