JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, who is an ex-employee of Municipal Board, Sarwar, Distt. Ajmer has filed this writ petition seeking the relief of pensionary benefits on the grounds inter alia that the petitioner retired from the service of the aforesaid Municipal Board on attaining the age of superannuation as a 'Bagwan' (Class-IV employee) w.e.f. 30.9.87 vide (Annexure-1). The Rajasthan Municipal Service (Pension) Rules 1989 were made effective and applicable to the employees of the Municipal Board w.e.f. 1.10.87 while the petitioner retired one day earlier i.e. on 30.9.87 as referred to above. Subsequent to the retirement of the petitioner, the petitioner represented his case to the Municipal Board for grant of pensionary benefits. He was, however, orally informed that his claim had been rejected by the Directorate of Pensions. Consequently he served a notice for demand of justice through his counsel on the Director, Local Bodies vide (Annexure-5) dated 4.2.94 with its copy to the Regional Dy. Director, Local Bodies but all to no effect. It is pertinent to mention that before sending the notice for justice demand, the appointing authority of the petitioner viz. the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Sarwar had recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of pensionary benefits vide (Annexure-3) dated 26.3.93. but the said request was turned down by the Regional Deputy Director. Local Bodies, Jaipur vide (Annexure-4) dated 31.3.93 on the ground that the request of the petitioner could not be considered since he had retired from services of the Municipal Board on 30.9.87 i.e. one day prior to the issuance of the Notification dated 1.10.87 and hence the petitioner was not entitled for grant of any pensionary benefits as the rules were not retrospective in their operation. 2. In the reply, filed on behalf of the respondent No. 5 (Municipal Board, Sarwar, Distt. Ajmer), it has been contended by the said respondent that the petitioner retired from service w.e.f. the forenoon of 30.9.87 while the Rajasthan Municipalities Service (Pension) Rules 1989 (here in after referred to as the Rules of 1989) were made applicable by the State of Rajasthan to the employees of the Municipal Board w.e.f. 1.10.87. Ajmer), it has been contended by the said respondent that the petitioner retired from service w.e.f. the forenoon of 30.9.87 while the Rajasthan Municipalities Service (Pension) Rules 1989 (here in after referred to as the Rules of 1989) were made applicable by the State of Rajasthan to the employees of the Municipal Board w.e.f. 1.10.87. The petitioner had applied to the respondent, Municipal Board for grant of pensionary benefits on 26.11.92 i.e. almost 5 years after coming into force of the aforesaid rules and in any case after the lapse of more than 3 years when the said rules were published. Hence according to the respondents he is not entitled for grant of pensionary benefits. It has further been contended by the said respondents in their reply that since the petitioner had already received the benefit on account of the provident fund including the employer's contribution made by respondent-Board in equal sum, which was contributed by the petitioner, he is not entitled for grant of pension. 3. At this stage it will be pertinent to refer to Rule 5 (4) of the Rules of 1989, which contemplates inter alia that any one who wants to opt for the pension and if he has received the Provident Fund along with the contribution made by the respondent-Board, he has to refund back the contribution of the Board together with interest accrued thereon till the date of retirement plus interest on this total amount @ 6% per annum for being credited to the Pension' Fund. The interest was supposed to be paid for the period from the date of receipt of the Provident Fund to the date of refund. 4. It has been contended in this regard that since the petitioner has not refunded the contribution made on account of provident fund by the employer-Municipal Board nor the interest as envisaged in Sub-rule 5(4) of the Rules 1989, he is not entitled for grant of pension. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the Notification dated 1.10.87 as well as the relevant documents on the record and also the judgments of this Court in the matter of Rajasthan Nagar Palika Seva Niwrat Karmachari Sangh v. State of Rajasthan in S.B.C.W.P. No. 288/89, decided on 26.2.91 , the order dated 18.2.92, passed by this Court in S.B.C.W.P. No. 1974/92 titled: Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. as well as the Order dated 29.10.96 , passed by this Court in S.B.C.W.P. No. 3130/92. titled: Brij Bhushan Sharma & ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. The ratio of the aforesaid decisions are to the effect that it is not open to the respondents to deny the relief of pensionary benefits to its employees who have already retired from the services of the Board on attaining the age of superannuation since there is no bar under the aforesaid circular for grant of pensionary benefits to the employees of the Municipal Board, who have retired prior to the said date. Moreover, the impugned circular, in question, has already been held to be arbitrary by this Court in S.B.C.W.P. No. 288/89, decided on 26.2.91 in which members of the petitioner's association were directed to be extended the pensionary benefits as had been given to the erstwhile employees of the Municipal Board. In the matter of Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (supra), this court while dealing with the similar situation had directed that the contribution made by the employer on account of the provident fund, the benefit of which had been availed by the employees shall be adjusted towards the arrears of total amount of Pension to which they were found entitled from the date of retirement. 6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order dated 13.2.92, passed by the Dy. Secretary to Local Self Government, Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby the State Government has already complied with the aforesaid directions of this Court dated 26.2.91 in the matter of Rajasthan Nagar Palika Employees v. State (supra). 7. In my view the petitioner deserves to succeed. The respondents are accordingly directed to release the pensionary benefits as admissible to the petitioner in accordance with rules and in terms of the ratio of the aforesaid decisions as well as on the basis of which the order dated 13.2.92 has been passed by the Dy. Secretary. Local Self Government, Rajasthan, Jaipur and which has already been implemented in its letter and spirit. Secretary. Local Self Government, Rajasthan, Jaipur and which has already been implemented in its letter and spirit. The necessary pensionary benefits as admissible to the petitioner shall be released with a period of 90 days from the date of submission of certified copy of this order subject to the adjustment of the benefits, which the petitioner has already received on account of Provident Fund being the employer's share, which has already been paid to the petitioner and which the respondents will be free to adjust at the time of releasing the pensionary benefits to the petitioner with interest on the total amount @ 6% per annum for being credited to the pension fund in accordance with Rule 5(4) of the Rules, 1989. 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of with the above directions. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******