JUDGMENT 1. - This is joint petition filed by three petitioners with the grievance that services which they have rendered in Panchayat Samiti was not taken note of as a qualifying service for computation of their retiral dues on the date of their retirement. 2. It has been alleged in the writ petition that petitioner-1 Om Prakash Gupta & petitioner-2 Rewati Lal s/o. Natti Lal were initially appointed in Gram Panchayat Nagar, District Bharatpur on 20.05.1965 & 07.01.1967 respectively on the post of Lower Division Clerk while petitioner no.3 Dal Chand s/o. Heeral Lal was appointed on 21.10.1965 as Class-IV employee in Gram Panchayat Nagar, District Bharatpur and while they were holding their respective post in Gram Panchayat Nagar, the Government took an administrative decision and issued notification on 17.12.1975 pursuant to which Municipal Board came into existence in place of Gram Panchayat Nagar, District Bharatpur and services of the present petitioners after their suitability being adjudged by a committee constituted by the Government were absorbed in municipal services which is evident from the minutes of the meeting dated 28.06.1978 (Annx.8) filed along with rejoinder. However, all the three petitioners retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and it has been alleged that benefit of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service was granted to each of the petitioners taking note of their service rendered from the date of their initial appointment in Gram Panchayat Nagar and after the petitioners retired from service the respondents unilaterally took a decision without affording opportunity of hearing to them and the service rendered prior to creation of Municipal Board i.e. 17.12.1975 was oblitrated and not considered as a qualifying service and it was treated to be an excess payment made to each of the petitioners and a recovery was made from their retiral dues, details of which has been mentioned by the petitioners in para-4 at page 6 of the writ petition and a sum of Rs. 139745/- from petitioner-1, Rs. 139745/- from petitioner-2 & Rs. 133942/- from petitioner-3 were illegally recovered. 3. 139745/- from petitioner-1, Rs. 139745/- from petitioner-2 & Rs. 133942/- from petitioner-3 were illegally recovered. 3. The main thrust of submissions of counsel for petitioners is that petitioners worked at the place where they were initially appointed which was Gram Panchayat Nagar, District Bharatpur and later on vide notification dated 17.12.1975 Municipal Board was created by the State Government and on account of such delimitation notification issued by the Government the petitioners became the employees of Municipality and after their suitability being adjudged they were finally observed as member of municipal services. 4. Counsel for petitioners submits that once the petitioners were absorbed in public interest total services rendered by each of the petitioners from the date of initial appointment be considered as a qualifying service for all practical purposes in terms of R.10 of the Rajasthan Municipal Services (Pension) Rules,1989 and so also Rajashtan Civil Services (Pension) Rules,1996 and as such the decision taken by the respondent on account of change of delimitation vide notification dated 17.12.1975 converting Gram Panchayat, Nagar into Municipal Board, Nagar, in not treating their services rendered in Gram Panchayat to be a qualifying service and pursuant thereto making recovery from their retiral dues, of which reference has been made to supra, is wholly arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and so also of the principles of natural justice. 5. Reply to the writ petition has been filed. However, the basic averment made in the reply is that services rendered prior to petitioners being absorbed and becoming member of Municipal Board Nagar cannot be treated to be a qualifying service as provided u/R.10 of the Rules,1989 and after the notification dated 17.12.1975 came into force the service rendered by the respective petitioners has been considered to be a qualifying service and as such recovery from their retiral dues was computed and effected and as regards the selection scale it was erroneously granted taking note of their service rendered prior thereto, as such excess payment made to the respective petitioners has been deducted rightly from their retiral dues and that being an apparent error committed there was no requirement for the respondent to serve a legal notice or afford opportunity of hearing to the respective petitioners. 6. I have considered the submissions and perused the material on record. 7. 6. I have considered the submissions and perused the material on record. 7. As regards the Municipal employees, pension and other retiral dues are regulated in accordance with Rajasthan Municipal Services (Pension) Rules, 1989 and R.10 provides the service which is to be counted for the purposes of qualifying service u/R.10 (b) provides that services rendered on regularly sanctioned post during which pay was drawn in the prescribed pay scale qualify for pension provided the Board has contributed towards Contributory Provident Fund or Pension Fund, as the case may be. 8. In the instant case, the case set up by the petitioners is that all the three were engaged in Gram Panchayat Nagar on the post of LDC and Class-IV and while holding their respective post, under delimitation notification dated 17.12.1975 creating Municipal Board Nagar obviously their suitability was adjudged by the committee constituted by the Government and all the three petitioners were finally absorbed and became member of municipal services as is evident from the minutes of the committee dated 28.06.1978 (Annx.8) copy of which has been placed on record along with rejoinder and the ultimate fact remains that when the petitioners have continuously discharged their duties without any break in service but on account of change in the delimitation of the Gram Panchayat to Municipal Board formed vide notification dated 17.12.1975 the petitioners became members of the municipal services and there is no such rule on the contrary either in R.10 or the Pension Rules which could deprive the petitioners from counting their qualifying service from the date of their initial appointment and in the opinion of this Court once the petitioners were absorbed in public interest the services which they have rendered from the date of their initial appointment shall certainly be considered to be a qualifying service for all practical purposes. However, coordinate bench of this Court after examining the similar controversy in CWP-5150/03, decided on 17.01.09 and held that services rendered prior to the incumbent being finally absorbed in municipal services was held to be a qualifying service which entitles the incumbent for grant of pensionary benefits pursuant thereto. However, coordinate bench of this Court after examining the similar controversy in CWP-5150/03, decided on 17.01.09 and held that services rendered prior to the incumbent being finally absorbed in municipal services was held to be a qualifying service which entitles the incumbent for grant of pensionary benefits pursuant thereto. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that Municipal Service Pension Rules, 1989 has not been taken note of but after going through the judgment referred to supra and the scheme of Rules,1989 this court does not find any distinction in the scheme of the present existing Municipal Service Pension Rules,1989 and of Rules,1996 examined by the coordinate bench while rendering the judgment referred to supra. 9. Once it has been held by this Court that the services rendered by the petitioners after being absorbed on account of delimitation vide notification dated 17.12.1975 is considered to be a qualifying service for all practical purposes contemplated u/R.10 of the Rules,1989 this Court has no hesitation in holding that denial of benefits which are due to the petitioners for their services rendered from their appointment and recovery made from each of them pursuant thereto is not justified and deserves to be quashed. 10. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the services rendered by each of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment as a qualifying service in terms of R.10 of the Rules,1989 and their retiral dues shall be recomputed on the basis of the total service rendered and the recovery made from their retiral dues, referred to supra, shall be repaid to the respective petitioners along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date actual recovery made till its payment. The respondents shall ensure compliance of the judgment within three months. No costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******