JUDGMENT 1. - This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner in this court against the judgment and order dated 2.3.1988 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Jaipur (for short the Tribunal) in Appeal No. 533/1985 by which the Tribunal declined to grant any relief to the petitioners in view of the fact that the officials of the local authority have been specifically excluded for the purpose of pensionary benefit under Rule 181 of the Rajasthan Service Rules and held that municipal services cannot be treated as service for all purposes as Government service. The Tribunal also declined to interfere in appeal on the ground that since the appellant was appointed by the Municipal Council, Jaipur and retired from service of the said municipal council and he is not entitled to any pensionary benefits being an employee of municipal council and also in view of Rules 178 and 181 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. 2. The brief facts which are relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties are that the petitioner was appointed as Sanitary Inspector w.e.f. 8.11.1947 after his selection by Jaipur State Service Commission and was posted at Jaipur on his appointment in the municipal council. Subsequently the Local Self Department of Rajasthan through R.P.S.C., Ajmer invited applications for the post of Regional Inspector, Local Bodies in the Directorate of Local Self Government from the candidates who possessed the requisite qualifications as specified in the said advertisement dated 18.7.1961. The petitioner being one of the prospective candidates for the said post applied and was selected by the RPSC as Regional Inspector and joined the said post w.e.f. 9.12.1961. This post was abolished and he was declared surplus and was absorbed in Cooperative Department as Assistant Registrar vide order, dated 30.8.1962. It has been contended in this regard that when he was relieved from the municipal council, Jaipur, he had retained his lien till confirmation on the new post and he had submitted his joining report w.e.f. 9.12.1961 in the Directorate of Local Bodies at Jaipur. In due course of service, on attaining the age of superannuation which was 55 years during the relevant time, he retired from service of the Cooperative Department (Consumer) as Joint Registrar w.e.f. 30.4.1983. In due course of service, on attaining the age of superannuation which was 55 years during the relevant time, he retired from service of the Cooperative Department (Consumer) as Joint Registrar w.e.f. 30.4.1983. Soon after his retirement from service of the municipal council, Jaipur the petitioner canvassed his claim to the municipal council for release of his pensionary benefits and submitted a representation in this regard to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan for inclusion of his 14 years and l month of service rendered by him with the municipal council during the period 8.11.1947 to 29.11.1961 which had been excluded by the municipal council as qualifying service and gratuity benefits. The matter was referred to the Finance Department of the State Government by the Cooperative Department where the petitioner had rendered service on his absorption with the said department, and both the said departments agreed to direct the petitioner that he should surrender Central Provident Fund amount (for short "CPF") which he had already received and which should be deposited with the Government Treasury before he could be given the pensionary benefits. Thereafter the Registrar Cooperative Societies requested the Administrator, Municipal Council, Jaipur vide his letter dated 3.3.1984 that the petitioner should be directed to deposit the CPF amount along with interest in the Government Treasury. The petitioner vide his reply to the aforesaid communication addressed to the Secretary, Cooperative Department on 19.7.1984 stated that he was ready and willing to Deposit his CPF amount for the period November, 1947 to 1952 which he had already received by way of an adjustment against the pensionary benefits. Thereafter the municipal council, Jaipur (respondent No. 3) deposited a sum of Rs. 2496.17 by a challan dated 14.2.1985 in the Government Treasury in compliance to the above said letter dated 19.9.1984. The petitioner thereafter made series of representations to the respondents to extend him the benefits of pension and gratuity etc. Thereafter the municipal council, Jaipur (respondent No. 3) deposited a sum of Rs. 2496.17 by a challan dated 14.2.1985 in the Government Treasury in compliance to the above said letter dated 19.9.1984. The petitioner thereafter made series of representations to the respondents to extend him the benefits of pension and gratuity etc. that since he had acceded to their request by depositing the CPF amount as aforesaid, the same may be deducted from his pensionary benefits and the necessary pensionary amount and the gratuity be extended to him as he did not illicit any response from the respondents, the petitioner was left with no option but to move the learned Tribunal which vide its impugned order, dated 2.3.1988 declined to grant any relief to the petitioner in view of Rules 179 and 181 of the Rajasthan Service Rules as referred to above. 3. For the sake of convenience and ready reference I deem it appropriate to refer to Rules 179 and 181 of the R.S.R: "Rules 179 - Conditions of qualification - The service of an officer does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to the following three conditions: First - The service must be under Government. Second - The employment may be in substantive/permanent, temporary or officiating capacity. Third - The service may be paid by Government." "Rule 181 - Appointment by Government necessary condition for pension - The service of a Government Servant does not qualify unless he is appointed and his duties any pay are regulated by the Government, or under conditions determined by the Government. The following are examples of Government servants excluded from pension by this rule: (1) Officials of a local authority, (2) Officials of grant-in-aid schools and Institutions. (3) Subordinates appointed by Treasury on their own responsibility." 4. The respondents on being noticed by this court have contended inter-alia that the petitioner is not entitled to claim pensionary benefits. Since the services rendered to the municipal council cannot be treated as service rendered to the State Government in view of Rule 181 of Rs. and notwithstanding the petitioner's contention that the amount already surrendered and deposited by him on account of CPF be deducted for computing his pensionary benefits, cannot be accepted notwithstanding the deposit of the said amount by the municipal council with the Government Treasury. and notwithstanding the petitioner's contention that the amount already surrendered and deposited by him on account of CPF be deducted for computing his pensionary benefits, cannot be accepted notwithstanding the deposit of the said amount by the municipal council with the Government Treasury. Learned counsel for the respondents have also controverted the contentions of the petitioner on the ground that the services rendered by the petitioner earlier to the municipal council for a period of 14 years 1 month and subsequently on his absorption by the cooperative department of the State, cannot be treated as in continuation of the earlier services rendered to the municipal council for the purposes of considering his qualifying service for computing towards his pensionary benefits. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, examined the legal position on the subject with reference to the Rules applicable to the petitioner and also the judicial pronouncement rendered by this court as well as by the apex court in this regard. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing has relied upon the judgment of the tribunal in case Smt. T.F. Daula and others v. State of Rajasthan, service appeal Nos. 136/1980 to 158/1980 reported in 1982 RLT (Para 4) page 49 in which the learned Tribunal had allowed the benefits of pension and gratuity to the erstwhile employees of the municipalities who on absorption in other departments of the State Government has ceased to be employees of the municipal council. The stand of the municipal council that as they had become surplus employees and consequently ceased to be employees of the municipal council for the purpose of pensionary benefits, was negatived by the Tribunal and they were held entitled to the pensionary benefits, on deposit of CPF amount with the Government Treasury. In the above matter the teachers serving under the private institutions aided by erstwhile State of Ajmer were not allowed to count their services for the purposes of pension by the State Government. The Government of Rajasthan later on by its letter dated 2.1.1980 revised its earlier decision of exclusion and finally took the view favourable to the teachers that services of all the teachers in the schools earlier rendered in the municipal committee/municipal board prior to the operation of the Rajasthan Municipal Councils Contributory Provident Fund Rules, 1970, shall be entitled to pensionary benefits. This benefit was extended to all the permanent employees of.the municipal boards who had consequent to the abolition of the municipal boards in 1959 were absorbed in various departments of the State Government of Panchayat Samitisar and Parisad services who were given option for voluntary deposit of CPF against pensionary benefits. 7. This court in the matter of Rajasthan Nagar Palika Seva Nigam Seva Nirwat Karmachari Sangh v. The State of Rajasthan and others decided on 26.2.1991 reported in 1991(2) WLN 562 extended the pensionary benefits to the members of the petitioner association. The writ petition was allowed and disposed of with the direction that the order dated 26.5.1984 published in State Gazette dated 17.9.1987 denying the members of the petitioner association the pensionary benefits as well as the order, dated 9.9.1988 was held to be discriminatory and it was directed that they will all be entitled to same pensionary benefits as had been given to erstwhile employees of the municipal services in Ajmer and Marwar State. 8. Prima facie I am of the opinion that the decision of the respondents in denying the pensionary benefits to the petitioner by excluding the period of service rendered by him to the municipal council, Jaipur prior to his absorption with the Cooperative Department of the State Government, i.e., 8.11.1947 to 29.11.1961 was entirely unjustified and grossly discriminatory keeping in 'view the fact that the State Government had by acceding to petitioner's request of his absorption to the cooperative department of the State Government was deemed to have acknowledged the continuity of service of the petitioner in municipal council, Jaipur which was a local self department of the Government of Rajasthan, since the selection of the petitioner was through RPSC, Ajmer, inviting applications for the post of Regional Inspectors Local Bodies from the candidates who were eligible to apply for the said posts and on petitioner's selection through RPSC for the said post it was highly improper for the respondents to have adopted the discriminatory stand by contending that the earlier service rendered by the petitioner to the municipal council which in fact is a department of the State and hence the employees of the municipal council could not be excluded for the purpose of pensionary and gratuity benefits. Since the municipal council is discharging its duties to the residents of Jaipur and is a public body under over all control and governance of the State Government. I am further of the view that learned Tribunal had failed to examine that the power of transfer of the municipal employees vested with the State Government and since the municipalities are discharging the functions as Local Self Bodies on behalf of the State Government and its major funds are also derived from the State Government, there is no reason as to why the erstwhile employees of municipal councils who had been absorbed on their request to the various departments of the State Government should be deprived such benefits. 9. My observations are also fortified from the judgments of the apex Court in the matter of Welfare Association of Absorbed Central Government Employees in Public Enterprises and others v. Union of India and Another etc., 1996(2) SCC 187 : [ 1996(1) SLR 618 (SC)] . "Common Cause." A Registered Society and others v. Union of India, 1987(1) SCC 142 : [1987(1) SLR 206 (SC)] . Devki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1971 SC 1409 : [1971(1) SLR 175 (SC)] . Union of India v. D.S. Nakaara, 1983 (7) SCC : [1983(2) SLR 246 (SC)] , Rajasthan Nagar Palika Seva Nivrat Karmachari Sangh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1991(2) WLN 562 , Bhagwani Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5174/1992 decided on 26.5.1997 and Bhagwan Sahay Pareek v. State of Raj. & Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5120/1994 decided on 28.5.1997 . 10. In cases Welfare Association v. Union of India and another (supra) and "Common Cause", a Registered Society v. Union of India (supra) the erstwhile employees of the Central Government consequent upon their absorption in different Undertakings/Enterprises of the State were not extended the pensionary benefits and the amount due to them on account of commutation of their pension was deducted by their parent departments. The apex Court while allowing the writ petition gave direction to the concerned departments to restore the pensionary benefits which had been deducted by the said departments and the petitioners were held entitled to the same on their absorption. The apex Court while allowing the writ petition gave direction to the concerned departments to restore the pensionary benefits which had been deducted by the said departments and the petitioners were held entitled to the same on their absorption. It was further held by the apex Court that consequent upon their absorption, they had been ceased to be the employees of the Central Government for the purpose of treating the qualifying period of service rendered by them for purpose of comutation of pension and other benefits. 11. As a result of the above discussions the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 2.3.1988 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No. 533/1985 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to treat the period of service rendered by the petitioner to the municipal council, i.e., 8.1 1.1947 to 29.11.1961 as qualifying service for the purpose of computation of pensionary benefits as well as the gratuity to which he is entitled in accordance with the Rules. The amount deposited by the municipal council in the Government Treasury against the CPF amount of the petitioner shall be adjusted towards the arrears of total amount of pension to which the petitioner is entitled from the date of such entitlement. He is further entitled to be paid pension at the revised rates month by month in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Service Rules and will further be entitled to the benefit of gratuity for which the revised PPO and GPO be issued in his favour for the period of service rendered by him as aforesaid. He will further be entitled to such benefits as have been extended to all similarly placed employees of the municipal councils, who, on their absorption with various departments of the State Government have ceased to be employees of the municipal council. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******