[2026:RJ-JP:6296] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8510/2004 Randhir Singh S/o Shri Heera Ram, aged about 55 years R/o Village post kaseru via Mukandgarh, Tehsil Navalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Raj through Director, Department of Agricultural Marketing, Pant Krishi Bhawan, C-Scheme, Jaipur 2. The Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi, Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh 3. The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Nain For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Joshi, Add GC Ms. Deepa Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 10/02/2026 1. The instant civil writ petition is preferred for claiming five years' notional benefits provided under Rule 11 of Rajasthan Krishi Upaj Mandi (Pension) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as Rules 1995). 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner took voluntary retirement on 07.04.1998 and prayed for the grant of notional benefits of 5 years' services; however, the respondents denied the claim. It is also contended that Rule 11 of 1995 specifically provided as under:- "यम-11 पेश ( ीकृ त करे की शत (Conditions for grant of pension) :- पेश ीकृ त करे वाले अकारी ारा राजा सेवा यम ख थम भाग "ब" अ ाय XX म! दी गई शत$ के अ%ग&त कम&चारी की पेश ीकृ त की जावेगी।" [2026:RJ-JP:6296] (2 of 3) [CW-8510/2004] 3. It is further contended that, as per rule 244 of Rajasthan Service Rules under clause D, an employee who retired voluntarily is entitled to 5 years of notional pensionary service; therefore, in light of the aforesaid rules, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of 5 years of service and consequently notional benefits on the above period. 4. Contrarily, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner is not entitled for notional benefit of 5 years as the State Government amended the Rajasthan Krishi Upaj Mandi Pension Rule 1995, vide notification dated 22.12.2001 and by the said notification Rule 8 was amended and further said Rule 3 was introduce by which the notional benefit of five years was provided to an employee if he seeks voluntary retirement, thus aforesaid benefit was introduced after the amendment in the rules from 22.12.2001. It is contended that the petitioner took retirement voluntarily in the year 1998; therefore, in the light of the aforesaid rules, the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of 5 years' service and notional benefits, as prayed. 5. Heard and perused the material available on the record. 6. It is not denied that the petitioner retired voluntarily on 07.04.1998. It is also admitted that the Pension Rule 1995 is applicable for the grant of pension and benefits. Rule 11 of the Pension Rules, as stated above, clearly states that Chapter 20 of the Rajasthan Service Rules is to be applied. Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules specifically provides that an employee is entitled to five years of notional benefits upon voluntary retirement. The contention of the learned counsel for the [2026:RJ-JP:6296] (3 of 3) [CW-8510/2004] respondent that there was no applicability of the grant of notional pension at the relevant time when the petitioner took retirement voluntarily is of no force. The rules cited by learned counsel for the respondent are not applicable for granting notional benefits on account of voluntary retirement, as the measure has been specifically dealt with in Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. Considering the aforesaid facts, this court deems it proper to allow the writ petition of the petitioner. 7. Respondents are directed to provide notional benefits to the petitioner for five years as per Rule 11 of the Rules of 1995 and re-fix the pension, commutation and provide other retirement benefits to the petitioner, including gratuity, GPF, etc. Respondents are further directed to make the payment within three months, along with interest at 9% per annum. 8. Accordingly, the instant civil writ petition stands disposed of. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J ashu /132