JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner who is a retired police personnel from Government Railway Police (for short 'GRP'), Indore, has challenged the impugned order Annexure-9 passed by the Director, Pension Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Respondent No. 3, whereby the claim of the Petitioner for admissibility to minimum pension including the benefit of revised pension in State service was held not admissible to the Petitioner for the reason that since he has already been getting the benefit of minimum pension as a Central Government employee, hence he was not entitled to claim dual benefit from the State Government of Rajasthan. Beh.g aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition on the grounds inter-alia that he joined the service of G.R.P., Indore as a constable w.e.f. 22.01.1944. In the year 1949, the Headquarters of the Railway Police was shifted to Ajmer. During the relevant period G.R.P. was under the direct control of the Home Department at New Delhi w.e.f. 31st August, 1954 when the jurisdiction of the states of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan was bifurcated, since the department of Railways was bifurcated from the Home Department of the Central Government, the petitioner exercised his option for voluntary retirement which was accepted and the petitioner was allowed to avail the benefit of pension by the Central Government. The Petitioner was sanctioned pension @ Rs. 7.9 Annas per month and gratuity of Rs. 270/- per month. Thereafter the petitioner was appointed as a constable in Ajmer State police w.e.f. 24.4.1956. The State of Ajmer was merged in the State of Rajasthan in November, 1956 and consequent upon the said merger the Petitioner became an employee of the State of Rajasthan. Consequently the Petitioner received promotion as Head Constable and as such served the police department of the State upto 20.2.1975 when he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation which was then 55 years and was held entitled to grant of pension by the State Government. On 31.8.1986, the Petitioner was paid the pension of Rs. 73/- per month, Rs. 142/- T.I. and thus he was getting Rs. 215/- per month in all. With effect from 1.9.1986, the Petitioner started getting Rs. 217/- per month on account of pension being minimum of pension. 2. On 31.8.1986, the Petitioner was paid the pension of Rs. 73/- per month, Rs. 142/- T.I. and thus he was getting Rs. 215/- per month in all. With effect from 1.9.1986, the Petitioner started getting Rs. 217/- per month on account of pension being minimum of pension. 2. Subsequently by a Notification dated 20.10.87 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan the pension was revised to Rs. 300/- per month being minimum of the pension which was held admissible to the State Government employee who retired from service of the State w.e.f. 1.9.1986. On this very date two orders were passed by the Finance Department pertaining to grant of Dearness Allowance to the pensioners and the revised pension formula was made applicable to all the State Government pensioners who had retired prior to 1.9.1986. 3. It has further been contended by the Petitioner that according to the aforesaid orders of the pension department, the petitioner should have been paid the minimum of pension and the dearness allowance as under Period Pension P.M. Rs. D.A. P.M Rs. Total P.M. Rs. 1 2 3 4 From 1.9.86 to 31.12.86 300.00 12.00 312.00 From 1.1.87 to 30.6.87 300.00 24.00 324.00 From 1.7.87 to 31.12.87 300.00 39.00 339.00 From 1.1.88 to 30.6.88 300.00 54.00 354.00 From 1.7.88 to 31.12.88 300.00 69.00 369.00 From 1.1.89 to 31.10.89 300.00 87.00 387.00 It has further been contended that on 12.9.1988, the Accountant General, Rajasthan sent a letter to the Accountant General, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior in the matter of revision of Petitioner's pension w.e.f. 1.9.1986 which was followed by another communication dated 20.9.1988. On 25.11.1988, the Director, Pension (Respondent No. 3) sent a communication to the Petitioner along with the copy of the Order dated 20.10.1987 to the Finance Department, calling upon the petitioner to produce the Order passed by the Finance Department to the concerned Treasury and forward the same to the office of Respondent No. 3 for final payment. The Petitioner accordingly applied for obtaining a copy of the Order passed by the Finance Department. 4. Finally the Director, Pension sent a communication to the Accountant General at Jaipur duly sanctioning the payment of Rs. The Petitioner accordingly applied for obtaining a copy of the Order passed by the Finance Department. 4. Finally the Director, Pension sent a communication to the Accountant General at Jaipur duly sanctioning the payment of Rs. 207/- per month towards the pension to be paid to the Petitioner and a letter was also sent in this regard to the Treasury Officer, Mandsaur authorising the payment of said amount w.e.f. 1.9.1986 with the following note : "Already getting Central Government minimum pension and hence benefit of minimum pension of State service is not admissible." It has further been contended by the Petitioner that for the service rendered by him to the Central Government he is already getting the benefit of minimum pension @ Rs. 375/- per month which was sanctioned w.e.f. 1.4.1986. The Petitioner had sent a representation dated 5.4.1989 which was followed by a Notice dated 8.6.1989 sent through his Counsel. Despite this, neither any relief has been granted to the Petitioner nor any reply was sent to his Notice and being aggrieved by the denial of minimum pension by the State of Rajasthan vide impugned Order Annexure-9, the Petitioner has assailed the same on the grounds inter-alia that the mere fact (a) that he is getting minimum pension from the Central Government for the service rendered by him to the Central Government cannot be a ground to deprive the benefit of minimum pension to the Petitioner for service rendered by him to the State Government of Rajasthan and the impugned Order depriving the same benefit is uncalled for being unwarranted, (b) that as per the Order, dated 20.10.1987 (Annexure-2) the petitioner is fully entitle to the minimum pension w.e.f. 1.9.1986 from the State Government and the Petitioner's case is not covered by any of the clauses referred to in Annexure-2 dated 20.10.1987 of the Finance Department of the State Government of Rajasthan which provides that those pensioner who retired prior to 1.9.1986 on attaining the age of superannuation, if the total amount of original pension (inclusive of commuted amount of pension) plus with temporary increase in pension with such increases in pension as admissible thereon at the rates in force as on 1.9.1986 falling short of Rs. 300/- p.m., the same may be raised to Rs. 300/- p.m. w.e.f. 1.9.86. 300/- p.m., the same may be raised to Rs. 300/- p.m. w.e.f. 1.9.86. The said Circular categorically mentions that in case of pensioner who is in receipt of more that one pension, the floor ceiling of Rs. 300/- p.m. will apply to the total of all pension plus temporary increases in pension and increases in pension admissible thereon as taken together, (c) notwithstanding the above circular, the petitioner has contended that he is entitled to the benefit of minimum pension as, admissible to him for rendering service to the State Government of Rajasthan notwithstanding the benefit of minimum pension which he is already getting from the Central Government, since the benefit of minimum pension which he is getting from the Central Government cannot be taken into consideration for his service rendered to the State Government. He has further contended that the Rules governing the two set of pensions is different and there is no bar to the Petitioner from availing the facility of pension for services rendered to the Central Government as well as the State Government, (d) once it is held that the Petitioner will be entitled to-payment of minimum pension @ Rs. 300/- p.m. it is implicit that no pensioner who has retired from the service of the State Government will be paid any amount falling short of the minimum amount of Rs. 300/- p.m. and in this view of the matter the denial of minimum pension to the Petitioner by the Respondents is violative of his fundamental rights under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. The Respondents on being noticed by this Court have controverted the aforesaid contentions of the Petitioner by contending inter-alia that the Petitioner is not entitled to get the double benefit of minimum pension, one for his service rendered to the Central Government and the other to the State Government of Rajasthan and no pensioner can be held entitled to claim double benefit and rather to be extend dual benefit of minimum pension which if extended would be in gross violation of the Rules applicable to the pensioners who were earlier in service of the Central Government and their retirement have joined the services of the State Government as that would be wholly illegal, unwarranted and contrary to the circular of the State Government (Finance Department) dated 20.10.87 (Annex. 9) .under which there is imposition of embargo to those employees who have joined the service of the State Government consequent to their retirement from the Central Government and are already getting the benefit of minimum pension on account of their service rendered to the Central Government or the State Government. Such employees ark not entitled to claim dual benefit. This fact is clearly born out from (Annex. 7) which is formate addressed to the Director, Pension Department, Respondent No. 3, and to which there is a note appended immediately below the said formate wherein it is specifically mentioned that in a case where a pensioner is in receipt of two pensions, particular are to be given in respect of both the pensions and the Petitioner has furnished the information in this regard by stating that he was earlier getting pension for having rendered service to the Government Railway Police, Ajmer (Department of Central Government which was abolished in 1954) and was getting the minimum pension @ Rs. 75/- p.m. w.e.f. 1.1.1986. This fact is also fortified from the circular (Annexure-3) dated 20.10.1987 issued by the Finance Department of the State Government of Rajasthan as referred to above. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, examined their rival claims and contentions and also the relevant documents on the record. 7. Prima facie I am of the considered opinion that since the Petitioner has already been getting the benefit of minimum pension for having rendered service to the Central Government (GRP) and subsequent to his attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 55 years the petitioner joined the police department of the State Government w.e.f. 28.3.1975 as Head Constable in G.R.P. and has also been getting the benefit of minimum pension for having rendered the service to the State Government, gratuity and other benefits as admissible to the retired employees of the State Government, the Petitioner is not entitled to claim the dual benefit of minimum pension from both, the Central Government as well as the State Government in view of the specific bar contained in the Rules governing the employees of the State Government. 8. I am further of the opinion that it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the Circular dated 20th October, 1987 (Annex. 8. I am further of the opinion that it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the Circular dated 20th October, 1987 (Annex. 7) issued by the Finance Department of the State Government whereby the State Government has categorically indicated that those pensioners who on attaining the superannuation are getting the pensionary benefits w.e.f. 1986 if it falls short of Rs. 300/- p.m., the same shall be raised to Rs. 300/- p.m. w.e.f. the said date. It has further been provided in the said circular that in case of pensioner who is in receipt of more than one pension, the floor ceiling of Rs. 300/- p.m. will apply to all the pensioners including temporary increase in pension and increases in pension as admissible thereunder are taken together. 9. In support of his contentions advanced at the bar learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of this court in the matter of State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Lakshmi Devi, 1994 (2) WLC 625 wherein the question which had arisen for consideration of this court was regarding the entitlement of the dependants of the deceased for family pension and the writ petitioner was held entitled for the same and it was held by this court that mere fact that the Petitioner has been receiving family pension in lieu of service rendered by her deceased husband to the Central Agency Police, Indore cannot be a ground for denying her family pension for the service rendered to the Rajasthan Police Force. In my view the ratio of the aforesaid judgment is neither attracted nor is applicable to this case for the reason that the question at issue in the said case was different than the one raised in the present writ petition and services to the Central Government and the other State Government as the petitioner cannot be held entitled to claim dual benefit one for having rendered services to the Central Government and the other to the State Government as the same would be contrary to rules. 10. In the result, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******