VYAS, J. - (1.) A common question is involved in both the aforesaid writ petitions, therefore, they are decided by this common order.
(2.) THE main question arising for consideration in the Instant petitions is that whether the services rendered by the petitioners from the date of initial appointment from 1964 to 1976 can be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension, in view of the Rule 10 (2) of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Service (Pension) Rules, 1995, (hereinafter referred to as to " Rules, 1995") or from the date of the Contributory Provident Fund. The factual aspect of the matter is that the petitioner No. 1, Rajendra Nath Sharma, was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk (L. D. C.) on 1. 5. 64 and was confirmed on this post on 1. 7. 74 and, thereafter, retired on 31. 1. 2002 as Assistant Secretary, Mandi Samiti, Bikaner, on attaining the age of superannuation. Similarly, Petitioner No. 2, Tilok Chand Kalra, was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk (L. D. C.) on 13. 11. 67 and was confirmed on 1. 7. 74 and retired on 31. 10. 2002, on attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Supervisor, Mandi Samiti, Chittorgarh. Petitioner Ram Pratap was initially appointed as L. D. C. In Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jodhpur, w. e. f. 6. 9. 1969 and was confirmed on 1. 7. 74 and retired on 31. 3. 99. At the time of appointment of the petitioner, the service of the employees of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti were controlled by the Agriculture Department, Government of Rajasthan. The Rajasthan Stage Agriculture Marketing Board was constituted in the year, 1974, and their control was transferred to the Board. In the year 1975, Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market (Mandi Samiti Employees Service) Rules, 1975 (for short, "the Rules, 1975") were framed under the orders of the State Government, in the year 1996m, whereby the employees were required to contribute 8% of their pay towards provident fund with effect from 1. 3. 76 and Mandi Samiti were also required to contribute the same amount towards contributory provident fund. The petitioners commenced such contribution w. e. f. 1. 3. 1976. Therefore, in that situation, petitioner are not responsible for the contribution of CPF amount w. e. f. 1. 3. 76.
(3.) IT was further mentioned that the Government vide notification dated 30. 5. 1979 published the Draft Rules, in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 7. 6. 1979, for amendment in the Rules of 1975, intending to make contribution to CPF provident fund, since the date of appointment of the employees but the same could not be materiallsed for not making the final publication and the employees of the mandi Samiti were deprived form making contribution to the CPF since their initial date of appointment, for which no fault could be found with the employees, like petitioners, it was the responsibility of the Mandi Samiti to deduct CPF from the salary of the petitioners from the date of initial appointment till the date of retirement, but the contributory amount was stated to deduct w. e. f. 1. 3. 1976, so petitioners are not responsible for this cut-off date as determined by the department, otherwise, in case, specific rule is framed, then the petitioners were under an obligation to give contribution of the amount since the date of their initial appointment, till the age of superannuation. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents that the Agriculture Produce Market (Provident Fund) Rules, 1982 (for short, "rules, 1982") were published vide Notification dated 22. 7. 1982. In which no provision was made for making contribution to the Contributory Provident Fund w. e. f. Initial date of appointment of the employees who were appointed prior to the year, 1976. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Board Service (Pension) Rules, 1975, (hereinafter referred to as, "the Rules, 1975") were made applicable vide Notification dated 21. 3. 1995 whereby options for contribution to the CPF were sought from the employees. ;