Honble MADAN, J. – Since the question of law raised in both the writ petitions is identical, therefore, both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. (2) The question of law which has arisen for consideration of this court in both the writ petitions is as to whether a work charge employee of Public Works Depart- ment (B&R) (for short PWD) is entitled to grant of pensionary benefits on completion of qualifying service on reaching the age of superannuation and whether the Department in which the petitioners have rendered their services as work charge employees is justified in not counting the period of service rendered by the petitioners for the purpose of pensionary benefit on the ground that they were daily- wage employees and hence not entitled to pensionary benefits? Another question which has arisen for consideration of this Court is whether the benefit of full pension as per Rule 179 of the Rajasthan Service Rules should not be extended to the petitioner in view of the judgment of this Court in the matter of Ismail Khan vs. State of Rajasthan (1), as well as in the matter of Birdhi Chand vs. State of Rajas- than, SBCWP No. 5897/93 and 6 other connected writ petitions, decided on 25-5-95 (2), wherein this Court had directed the concerned department to re-examine the case of each of the petitioners for the purpose of considering the entitlement of the petitioners for the grant of pensionary benefits in lieu of services rendered for the period they had worked as work charge employees for fixing their pension in accor- dance with the rules irrespective of the fact that the contributory provident fund (for short CPF) had been deducted from the salary of such employees. It has not been disputed that both the writ petitions are squarely covered by the above referred orders passed by this Court against which an SLP was also filed by the State Government before the Apex Court and which has since been dismissed by the Apex Court. (3) For the sake of convenience I deem it appropriate to refer to the facts of Civil Writ Petition No. 3812/94 Ram Chander vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, which are given below. (3) For the sake of convenience I deem it appropriate to refer to the facts of Civil Writ Petition No. 3812/94 Ram Chander vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, which are given below. (4) The grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a work charge Mistri in the PWD of the State Government with effect from 15-1-47 at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month in the Medical College, Jaipur vide office order issued by the Executive Engineer (respondent No,3). He was made permanent on the said post vide office order dated 10-1-68. On 26-9-75 the petitioner was directed to be retired from the said post of Mistri on attaining the age of superannuation and his pension case was sent or finalization to the Accountant General, Rajasthan,. under the order of the respondent No. 3 dated 26-1-78. (5) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner had served the State Government for the period with effect from 19-1-47 to 30-9-75 and had thus completed 29 years of service. His C.P.F. was deducted and deposited in his account with effect from 1-4-62, which was previously wrongly entered with effect from 1-4-63. It has been contended in this regard that the respondents have not counted the period of service rendered by the petitioner with effect from 15-1-47 to 31-3-62 for which period CPF was not deducted but the petitioner had remained in service on work charge basis. It has been further conten- ded that on the date of retirement the basic salary of the petitioner including usual allowances was Rs. 210/- per month. It is this impugned action of the respondents for denying the pensionary benefits to the petitioner for the aforesaid period,which has been challenged in this Writ Petition on the grounds inter-alia that it is violative of Article 14& 16 of the Constitution of India since the service rendered by the peti- tioner on work charge basis should have been counted by the respondents as qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits admissible to the petitioner in accordance with rules. (6) In reply to show cause notice filed on behalf of the Director,Pension Department-respondent No. 4, it has been contended that the petitioner had wor- ked with effect from 19-1-47 to 31-3- 62 as a work charge employee and thereafter his CPF was deducted and so he was taken on regular cadre and was retired on 26.9.75(30-9-75) after attaining the age of superannuation. It has been further contended that the P.P.O. No. 64429(R) was issued in favour of the petitioner after considering his service period which was verified as per rules countable for the purpose of pension. It has been further contended that the petitioners period of service with effect from 15-1-47 to 31-3- 62 was not counted for the purpose of pension since his CPF was deducted only with effect from 1-4-62 as per the provision of Rule 180 of Rajasthan Service Rules,1951. It has also been contended by the respondent in the reply that old cases which have already been decided and in which the final pension order (P.P.O.) has already been issued, do not deserve to be re-opened now. (7) In this regard, I am of the opinion that since DPF is an independent sche- me, deductions made on that account from the salary of an employee by the employer should not be reckoned or construed as deposits made on account of pensionary benefits which may be admissible to an employee either on account of period of qualifying service rendered by an employee or on reaching the age of superannuation as both the CPF and pension are independent and not co- related to each other. I am further of the opinion that it is cardinal principle of law that the Pension is neither a bounty nor a grace but an amount to which an employee is entitled as a matter of right after he has rendered qualifying service or on reaching the age of superannuation as so well settled by the Apex Court in the matter of D.S. Nakara & Ors. vs. Union of India (3), Hence, it will be wholly unjust, unreasonable and improper to deny payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioners for the reason that since his CPF was deducted by the respondents for the period he had worked as a work-charge employee i.e. from 19-1-47 to 31-3-62, he is not entitled to pensionary benefits as it would be grossly violative of petitioners fundamental rights under Articles 14,16 & 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus it is not open to the employer to deny pensionary benefits to an employee as it would also result in violation of his right to livelihood which is an integral part of right to life and liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (8) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the relevant documents on the record. It has been contended by Shri O.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 that in the matter of State vs.. Devilal, which was an identical matter pertaining to the grant of pensionary benefits to the work charge employees, the State had preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Honble Supreme Court against the orders of this Court and the said SLP was rejected by the Apex Court on 7-4-95. There after a review was preferred before the Apex Court which I am informed is pending and since the said Review Petition has neither been admitted nor there is any stay order passed by the Apex Court in the said review petition, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Apex Court rejecting the SLP will operate as obiter in the matter and will be binding on the respondents. (9) Consequently both the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents as well as the Administrative Department of the State are accordingly directed to complete all the necessary formalities pertaining to the revision of pensionary benefits to the petitioners for the disputed period i.e. from 19.1.47 to 31.3.62 in Civil writ No. 3812/94 and from 7-2-54 to 7-2-64 in Civil Writ No. 5349/93, which will be deemed as qualifying service for the grant of pension to the petitioners. The exercise in this regard should be positively completed within 3 month from today and the arrears of pension for aforesaid disputed period shall be paid to the petitioners within one month thereafter. The exercise in this regard should be positively completed within 3 month from today and the arrears of pension for aforesaid disputed period shall be paid to the petitioners within one month thereafter. No.order as to costs.