[2025:RJ-JP:40574-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1141/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12981/2023 1. Mahaveer Kumar Jain S/o Shri Ratan Lal Jain, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of D-31, Chikitsalya Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. Ram Awtar Gupta S/o Late Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of E-2/231, Chitrakoot Scheme, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. 3. Jinesh Chand Jain S/o Late Shri Umedi Lal Jain, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of 54, Chetan Enclave Second, Jaipur Road, Alwar. 4. Smt. Manisha Bhatt W/o Shri Dhirendra Bhatt, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of D And D House, Diesels And Diesels, Dahod Road, Banswara. 5. Prem Dayal Verma S/o Late Shri Bribal Ram, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of 132, Rfc Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. 6. Radhey Shyam Gupta S/o Shri K.s. Gupta, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of 3/30, Sector 3, Chitrakoot Scheme, Gandhipath, Jaipur. 7. Bhagwan Singh S/o Late Shri Mohan Singh, Aged About 69 Years, Resident Of B-21, Jain Vihar Colony, Behind Kamla Nehru Nagar, Bhakrota, Jaipur. 8. Shri Kishan Bohra S/o Shri Ramrakh Bohra, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of 9/387, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 9. Arun Kumar Sood S/o Late Shri Naranjan Lal Sood, Aged About 69 Years, Resident Of 53 Rfc Colony, Behind B Block, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. 10. Sohan Lal Vyas S/o Shri Bansi Lal Vyas, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Brmhapuri Vaso Ka Chowk Jodhpur. ----Appellants/Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Industries Department, Government Of Rajasthan, [2025:RJ-JP:40574-DB] (2 of 7) [SAW-1141/2025] Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. The Managing Director, Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. Respondents/Non-Petitioners 4. John.c.u S/o Late Ulahannan.c.u., Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of House No 4, Neelum, Nagar, Dahod Road, Banswara. 5. Kallash Raj Mehta S/o Shri Hukum Raj Mehta, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Mehta House, Jata Bas, Jodhpur. 6. Smt. Prem Bhatia W/o Shri Sudershan Bhatia, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of 238, Frotier Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. 7. Om Prakash Kadel S/o Shri Dev Kishan, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of 65, Rudra Vihar, Keshav Nagar, Udaipur. 8. Ajit Kumar Jain S/o Shri Bhagwan Sahay Jain, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of 2/136, Housing Board, Arawali Vihar, Alwar. 9. Laxman Lal Meena S/o Late Shri Hatti Ram Meena, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of C-19, Bal Nagar, Gali Nagar 3, Rao Ji Ka Bagh, Kartarpura, Jaipur. 10. Smt. Kunjumole Chacko D/o Shri O. Kunjukunju, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of Padinjare Vila Veedu, Ambi Poika. P.o, P.k.p.kavala, Kundara, Kerala 691501. 11. R.k. Talreja S/o Late Shri Kesu Ram Talreja, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of 17B Shakti Nagar, Udaipur. 12. Kajor Mal Meena S/o Shri Ram Gopal Meena, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of Village Karnawar, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa. 13. Panna Lal Salvi S/o Kishan Lal, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of House No 43, Ward No 63, Adarsh Nagar E Block, Kalka Mata Road, Udaipur. 14. Ashok Kumar Jain S/o Late Shri Jinendra Kumar Jain, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Near Jain Mandir, J.k. Colony, Adinath Nagar, Dausa. 15. Arun Kumar Bhatnagar S/o Late Shri Pratap Singh [2025:RJ-JP:40574-DB] (3 of 7) [SAW-1141/2025] Bhatnagar, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of 170-E, Block, Hiran Magri, Sector 14, Udaipur. 16. Smt. Lilly Chacko W/o Eapen Chacko, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of Plot No 37A, Tagore Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. 17. Satyanarayan Swami, S/o Late Shri Mohan Das Swami, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of Near Police Station, Ward No 5, Chhaper, District Churu. 18. Smt. Susamma George W/ Shri Y. Georgekutty, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of Malavila Zhikathu, Ashish Villa, Pulamon (Po) Kottarakara. Kara Kollam (Distt, Kerala. 19. Sajjan Singh Rathore Late Shri Shardul Singh Rathore, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of B-138, Agarsen Nagar, Churu. 20. Ashok Kumar Agarwal S/o Late Shri Radheyshyam Agarwal, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of 251/47, Pratap Enclave, Post Jagatpura, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur. 21. Sundar Lal Oswal S/o Chhigan Lal Oswal, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of 128A, Ganga Sagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. 22. Ram Babu Gupta S/o Shri M.c Gupta, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of 78, Prithvi Nagar, Naya Kheda, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. 23. Bhupendra Kumar Karawat S/o Late Shri Manilal Karawat, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of Jai Hind Nagar, Street No 2, Near Shubash Park, New Colony, Dungarpur, Rajasthan. 24. Vinodi Lal Agarwal S/o Kirodi Mal Agarwal, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of 1/226, Arawali Vihar, Kala Kuwa, Housing Board, Alwar. 25. Kamal Chand Bapna S/o Late Shri Panna Lal Bapna, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of 15A, Guru Ramdas Colony, Opp. Choudhary Offset, Udaipur. 26. Mangat Ram Sharma S/o Shri Sua Lal Sharma, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of 148, Scheme No 4, Rajendra Nagar, Alwar. 27. Ashutosh Dixit S/o Shri Upendra Nath Dixit, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of 97, Prithviraj Nagar, Maharani [2025:RJ-JP:40574-DB] (4 of 7) [SAW-1141/2025] Farm, Durgapura, Jaipur. 28. Nihal Chand Choudhari S/o Behru Lal Choudhary, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of 44, Samta Nagar, Gas Godwan Road, Hiran Magri, Sector 3, Udaipur. 29. Retnamma Gopal W/o Shri Gopalkrishnan, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of 141, Brighu Nagar, Behind Gehlot Bangla, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. 30. Hari Singh S/o Maman Ram Bundela, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of B-180, Lane No7, Ganga Sagar Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. 31. U.r.mehta S/o Late Shri Bhabhoot Raj Mehta, Aged About 73 Years, Resident Of 75A, Section 7 Extention, New Power House Road, Jodhpur. 32. Ajay Kumar Jain S/o Late Shri Dilip Chand Jain, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of 2/512, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. 33. Brij Lal Soni S/o Gokul Chand Soni, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of Ward No 43, Opp. Ramjas Well, Aguma Mohalla, Churu. 34. Chhagan Lal Soni S/o Shri Birdhi Chand, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Opp. Mahila Police Thana, Shiv Parvati Bhawan, A1 Police Line, Ratanada, Jodhpur. 35. Satish Kumar Mamodia S/o Ram Ji Lal Mamodia, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of 13, Jamna Colony, Dher Ka Balaji, Sikar Road, Jaipur. 36. Pankaj Bhown S/o Shri M.s. Bhown, Aged About 65 Years, 602, Golden Crown, A-44 Sethi Colony, Jaipur 302004. 37. Hari Ram Bhati S/o Late Shri Bahadur Ram, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of 25, Adarsh Nagar, Ramjan Hatha, Near Army Childrens Academy, Banar Road, Jodhpur. 38. Narendra Mal Daga S/o Late Shri Prakash Mal Daga, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of 65-C, Dev Nagar, Pal Link Road, Jodhpur. 39. Mahendra Mehta S/o Shri N.s. Mehta, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of 95/a, Sector B, Saraswati Nagar, Basni, Jodhpur. 40. J.k Purohit S/o Shri Chandradutt Purohit, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of 24, Gulab Nagar, Khem Ka Kua, Pal Road, Jodhpur. [2025:RJ-JP:40574-DB] (5 of 7) [SAW-1141/2025] 41. Kishan Swaroop Singhal S/o Late Shri B.s. Singhal, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of B-529, Jda Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. 42. Ashok Kumar Godha S/o Late Shri Bhag Chand Jain, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of 50, Sarvodaya Colony, Jawahar Nagar, Ajmer. 43. Jagdish Naraian Sharma S/o Shari Ghasi Lal, Aged About 69 Years, Resident Of 222, Mandir Wali Gali, Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. ----Proforma Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Munesh Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 07/10/2025 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while it is true that the employees who were given benefit of Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short, “VRS”) a class different from that of employees who ordinarily attain superannuation and retired but amongst the employees who seek VRS, no distinction can be drawn. He submits that so far as the employees who ordinarily take voluntary retirement in the corporation, would get the entire benefits as given to a person who attains superannuation minus the period of service. The only difference, therefore, would be the amount of qualifying service amongst them, however, the present set of petitioners/appellants are those employees who were offered the special VRS scheme. In the said VRS scheme, ex gratia amount was to be paid. There was no occasion of depositing of 50% ex gratia amount along with 12% interest, if they wanted to avail the benefit of Old Pension Scheme [2025:RJ-JP:40574-DB] (6 of 7) [SAW-1141/2025] (for brevity, “OPS”) and therefore such directions issued for the employees who have opted for VRS, was discriminatory. 2. We have considered the submission. 3. Firstly, we notice that the arguments as advanced before us is concerned, the same were not a part of the pleadings before the learned Single Judge and therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to examine the said aspect. The learned Single Judge has observed as under:- “8. The employees, who retired on attaining age of superannuation, if want to opt OPS, are required to re-deposit CPF amount with interest, whereas the employees who opted for VRS, since the ex gratia amount was also released to them by the respondent- Corporation, it has been specified in the scheme that if those employees want to avail the benefit of OPS, shall redeposit CPF amount along with interest and 50% of the ex gratia amount with interest. 9. In the opinion of this Court, such distinction is based on the principle of intelligible differentia. The employees, who availed benefit of VRS cannot claim parity and equality with the employees, who have retired on attaining age of superannuation. Both categories are different and can be treated differently. 10. In addition to above, this Court finds that the Scheme of OPS is a beneficial scheme and is obviously a policy decision of the State Government, which has been followed by the respondent-Corporation. The OPS is not a binding scheme but optional, hence petitioners cannot pick & choose the scheme in part.” 4. We respectfully agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge as regards the aforesaid proposition of law mentioned by the learned Single Judge is concerned. 5. With regards to the new arguments raised before us, although in appeal, we need not have addressed to it. We find that the submission also does not have any basis to stand. [2025:RJ-JP:40574-DB] (7 of 7) [SAW-1141/2025] 6. It is the case where all the employees who have already sought voluntary retirement and have received ex gratia payment have been given an option to avail the benefit of OPS. For the purpose of allowing them to avail OPS, condition has been laid down that the 50% of the ex gratia amount should be deposited back. Such condition is in fact beneficiary to such VRS persons simply because otherwise in normal course if they would have no ordinary VRS, there is no question of granting of ex gratia amount, it is only under in special scheme that the entire ex gratia amount paid and utilised by the concerned employees, only 50% is remanded back along with interest which reflects that the State Government has given benefit of the remaining 50% of ex gratia to concerned employees. 7. In these circumstances, it cannot be said in any manner to be arbitrary, the appeal is totally misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Order passed by the learned Single Judge is is upheld. 8. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Gaurav/Diksha-25