JUDGMENT 1. - On closure of Bhanwarlal Duggar Ayurved Vishva Bharti, Sardarshahar (Churu), the services of the petitioner were absorbed as Vaidya in the State Government. The petitioner served the said institution from 24.9.1960 to 12.7.1971 and joined Ayurved Department on 26.6.1972. Thereafter, the petitioner was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.1992. 2. Vide order dated 23.12.1993, the period from 13.7.1971 to 26.6.1972 was regularised under Rule 212 of the Rajasthan Service Rules (RSR) and further the period from 1.4.1961 till 12.7.1971 was also treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension on the condition that the petitioner had deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) in the State Treasury. The above order was passed by the respondent after the petitioner having deposited a sum of Rs. 2606/- on 25.9.1992 and a sum of Rs. 3105/-, including interest of Rs. 1635/-, on 5.10.1993. Similar orders were passed in respect of three other similarly situated persons vide order dated 17.8.1993. 3. After receiving the pension papers from the Administrative Department, the Pension Department sent the matter back to the Government for approval of the Finance Department so far as initial period of service in the private institution from 1.4.1960 till 12.7.1971 was concerned. 4. After instructions from the Finance Department, an order was issued by the Dy. Secretary, Medical and Health (GR IV) Ayurved Department, Government of Rajasthan, by which, earlier order dated 23.12.1993 was cancelled only on the ground that the petitioner had deposited the CPF amount with interest after his date of retirement and further directions were issued for refunding the amount deposited by the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.1.1996 (Annex. 10) in the present writ petition and has prayed that the respondent be directed to pay him the revised pension and gratuity treating his past institutional services from 1.4.1961 to 12.7.1971 as qualifying service for the purpose of pension as already sanctioned vide order dated 23.12.1993. 6. The Secretary, Medical and Health Department as well as Director, Ayurved Department (respondent Nos. 1 to 3) have filed their reply and a separate joint reply has also been filed on behalf of the Director, Pension Department as well as Secretary, Finance Department. 6. The Secretary, Medical and Health Department as well as Director, Ayurved Department (respondent Nos. 1 to 3) have filed their reply and a separate joint reply has also been filed on behalf of the Director, Pension Department as well as Secretary, Finance Department. The Medical Department, in their reply, have submitted that in view of the circular issued by the Finance Department, the petitioner was not entitled for pension for the period he served in the private institution because the petitioner did not deposit the amount of CPF in time, whereas, in the reply filed on behalf of the Director, Pension Department and the Finance Department, it has been stated that the petitioner was not at all entitled for pension under the rules for the period he served in the private institution. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties have also perused the entire material on record. 8. The order dated 23.12.1993 was passed after sanction of the Hon'ble Governor. The order was passed only after the petitioner had retired on 30.11.1992. The substantial amount of CPF to the tune of Rs. 2606/- had already been deposited prior to the date of retirement on 25.9.1992, whereas, when further dues were pointed out, the same were also deposited by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 3105/- on 5.11.1993 which included the interest till date to the tune of Rs. 1635/-. The above facts have not been disputed by the respondents. 9. There seems to be inherent contradictions in the stand taken by two different departments. The impugned order has been passed by the Administrative Department after due consideration by the Finance Department. The reasons given in the order are that the whole amount has not been deposited prior to date of retirement, as such, the earlier order passed on approval of the Hon'ble Governor has been cancelled. Whereas, the Finance Department in their reply denies claim of the petitioner for pension for the period he served in the private institution altogether. 10. Counsel for the Pension Department and the Finance Department could not show any rule or circular to substantiate the stand taken by the department. He has further not been able to clarify as to how other three similarly situated persons have given the same benefit under the similar circumstances. 11. 10. Counsel for the Pension Department and the Finance Department could not show any rule or circular to substantiate the stand taken by the department. He has further not been able to clarify as to how other three similarly situated persons have given the same benefit under the similar circumstances. 11. That apart, once a benefit has been given to an employee after due approval of the Hon'ble Governor, more so, when under similar circumstances same benefit has been given to other similarly situated persons also, the same could not have been withdrawn without issuing any notice to the concerned employee. 12. After having carefully considered the whole material on record, I am of the view that the stand taken by the Finance Department is wholly unjustified, arbitrary and without proper application of mind. This is also one of those cases where the concerned authorities act in a very casual, callous and mechanical manner. The poor employee, who has served the State, the full tenure of his service, is deprived of the benefit due in his favour and is forced to knock the doors of the Court. Since the petitioner had already deposited the whole amount with interest, the respondents should have taken positive pragmatic approach in the matter. 13. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 3.1.1996 (Annex. 10) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to make payment of revised pension and gratuity to the petitioner treating his past institutional service from 1.4.1961 to 12.7.1971 as qualify service for the purpose of pension as has been done in the cases of other similarly situated persons. The respondents are directed to make the payment of revised pension and gratuity within 30 days of the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In the facts of the present case, since the petitioner had already deposited the whole amount of CPF with interest way back on 5.10.1993 but the petitioner was denied his due pension and gratuity which is to be paid only by this order, I deem it just and proper to allow interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the due amount w.e.f. 1.11.1993. The respondents are further directed to pay costs of Rs. 1000/- (one thousand) to the petitioner within the period mentioned above.Petition allowed. *******