JUDGMENT Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.:- The petitioner, a retired Additional District & Sessions Judge from the State of Haryana, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for addition of the period at the Bar to service period qualifying for superannuation pension. 2. Though, in the writ petition, the petitioner claims such benefit in terms of Rule 4.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that such Rule has been deleted on 26.06.1983 when Rule 4.2-A has been inserted. The substituted Rule i.e. 4.2-A reads as under: “4.2-A. An Officer appointed to a service or post may add to his service qualifying for superannuation pension (but not for any other class of pension) the actual period not exceeding one-fourth of the length of his service or the actual period by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeds twenty-five years or a period of five years, whichever is least, if the service or post is one – (a) for which post-graduate research or specialist qualification, or experience in scientific, technological or professional fields is essential, and (b) to which candidates of more than twenty-five years of age are normally recruited: Provided that this concession shall not be admissible to any such Officer unless his actual qualifying service at the time he quits Government service is not less than ten years. Provided further that any such officer, who is recruited at the age of thirty-five years or more may, within a period of three months, from the date of his appointment, elect to forego his rights to pensions whereupon he shall be eligible to subscribe to a Contributory Provident Fund. Note 1. – The option once exercised shall be final. Note 2. – The decision to grant the concession under this rule shall be taken by the Administrative Department at the time of recruitment in consultation with the Finance Department and the Public Service Commission. The consultation with the Public Service Commission will be restricted to those posts only which fall within their purview. 2. This rule shall apply in respect of persons who are recruited after the 26th October, 1960.” 3. The consultation with the Public Service Commission will be restricted to those posts only which fall within their purview. 2. This rule shall apply in respect of persons who are recruited after the 26th October, 1960.” 3. The claim of the petitioner is based upon the fact that he has practiced as a Pleader from 13.08.1959 to 31.07.1961 and that on 01.08.1961, he joined as Stamp Auditor in the office of Financial Commissioner, Punjab. On such post, he continued to work till 13.12.1966. It was on 14.12.1966, the petitioner joined as a Member of Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) and that he retired after doing almost 33 years of Government service on 30.09.1991. 4. The petitioner retired as a Member of Superior Judicial Services governed by Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963, as applicable in the State of Haryana. Rule 16, as originally framed, in respect of Death-cum-Retirement benefits contemplates that the Members of the Service shall be governed by All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, as amended from time to time. However, such Rule has been amended vide notification dated 28.05.2003 contemplating that the Members of the Service shall be governed by the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II, as applicable to the State of Haryana, as amended from time to time. The proviso was also inserted that in case of a direct recruit, the actual period of practice at bar not exceeding ten years shall be added to his service qualifying for superannuation pension and other retirement benefits. The relevant un-amended Rule reads as under: “16. Death-cum-Retirement Benefits – In respect of death-cumretirement benefits, the members of the Service shall be governed by the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II, as applicable to the State of Haryana, as amended from time to time by the Haryana Government. Provided that in the case of a direct recruit to this Service, the actual period of practice at bar not exceeding ten years, shall be added to his service qualifying for superannuation pension and other retirement benefits.” 5. Similar amendment was carried out earlier in the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963, as applicable to the State of Punjab vide notification dated 22.02.1990. 6. The Supreme Court in a judgment reported as State of Punjab & others Vs. Similar amendment was carried out earlier in the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963, as applicable to the State of Punjab vide notification dated 22.02.1990. 6. The Supreme Court in a judgment reported as State of Punjab & others Vs. Manohar Lal Mirchea (1997) 5 SCC 154 while considering the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963 as applicable to Punjab has held that such Rules are not applicable to a member of Service who attained the age of superannuation prior to amendment of Rules, as such Rules are only prospective in nature. The relevant extract reads as under: “4. The appellant, therefore, made a representation sometime thereafter for refixation of his pension by giving him benefit of Rule 4.2. It was rejected by the State Government on 09.07.1992 on the ground that the respondent at the time of his retirement was governed by the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules and not by the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II and, therefore, he was not entitled to claim the benefit of Rule 4.2. It was also rejected on the ground that the amendment of 22.02.1990 made in Rule 16 off the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules was only prospective and the benefit of the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in S.S.Dewan Vs. State of Punjab (LPA No.1295 of 1991 decided on 28.10.1991) cannot be given as the said decision was under challenge before this Court and operation of the order passed in that case was stayed. The respondent, therefore, filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It was allowed, following its judgment in Raj Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Haryana (CWP No.11756 of 1989 decided on 17.09.1991) by holding that fixing 26.10.1960 as the cut-off date was arbitrary. The State has, therefore, filed this appeal. 5. As stated earlier prior to 22.02.1990 members of the Punjab Supeerior Judicial Service, in respect of their death-cum-retirement benefits were governed by the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules and not by the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II. Though the respondent claimed the benefit of Rule 4.2 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II, it was really by virtue of the amendment made in Rule 16 of the Punjab Superior Service Rules, which made those rules applicable from 22.02.1990. As we have held in State of Punjab Vs. Though the respondent claimed the benefit of Rule 4.2 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II, it was really by virtue of the amendment made in Rule 16 of the Punjab Superior Service Rules, which made those rules applicable from 22.02.1990. As we have held in State of Punjab Vs. S.S.Dewan (1997) 4 SCC 569 that the amendment made in Rule 16 applies only to those who were/are in service and retired/retire after it has come into force, claim made by the respondent has to be regarded as misconceived and without any substance. Therefore, in view of the decision in S.S.Dewan case (supra), this appeal is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent stands dismissed. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.” 7. It may be stated that in Raj Kumar Gupta’s case (supra), reference of which finds mention in the aforesaid order, challenge was to the cut-off date as 26.10.1960 in Rule 4.2. This Court has struck down the classification introduced on account of the said cut-off date. In the said case, Shri Gupta has sought to add to his qualifying service, the actual period by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeded 25 years since the service or the post to which he was appointed was one for which the specialist qualification like graduation in law was essential. Such benefit was declined to the petitioner for the reason that Rule 4.2 is not applicable to the petitioner and that he is governed by All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958. This Court examined Rule 8(2) of 1958 Rules and held that qualifying service of the petitioner prior to his becoming a member of the Superior Judicial Services will have to be counted in terms of Rule 4.2 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules and that classification denying the benefit to appointees prior to 26.10.1960 is discriminatory. After holding so, the Court held that the persons who have to join service for which postgraduate research or specialist qualification or experience in scientific, technological or professional fields is essential and whose entry suffer due to such delay. It is for this reason, at the time of retirement certain numbers of additional years are added to the qualifying service. After holding so, the Court held that the persons who have to join service for which postgraduate research or specialist qualification or experience in scientific, technological or professional fields is essential and whose entry suffer due to such delay. It is for this reason, at the time of retirement certain numbers of additional years are added to the qualifying service. The Court observed as under: “…..The object of giving the benefit of adding additional years to the qualifying service for superannuation pension, as I can discern from the Rule is that persons who have to join service for which postgraduate research or specialist qualification or experience in scientific, technological or professional fields is essential and who entry into service may, thus, get delayed, do not suffer due to such delay and it is for this reason that at the time of retirement a certain number of additional years are added to their qualifying service for superannuation pension….” 8. In view of the aforesaid background, the claim of the petitioner required to be examined is that whether in terms of Rule 4.2-A, the period spent by him at the Bar is required to be added to the qualifying service. 9. The claim of the petitioner is that in terms of Rule 4.2-A, the period spent by him at the Bar is required to be added to the qualifying service. It is admitted that the period of service as Stamp Auditor has been taken into consideration for determining qualifying service. The claim of the petitioner is based upon Single Bench judgment of this Court in H.S.Maunder Vs. Punjab State 2000 (3) PLR 375, wherein it has been held that since the essential qualification for appointment to the State Judicial Services is the Graduation in Law, a professional qualification, therefore, the period at the Bar is required to be added to the qualifying service. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of this Court in Trilok Nath Gupta Vs. State of Punjab & others 1994 (3) SCT 539 to contend that the additions to the qualifying service can be made only at the time of initial recruitment. Since the petitioner was initially recruited as a Stamp Auditor, a post for which there was no professional qualification required, therefore, the period spent by the petitioner at the Bar cannot be added towards the qualifying service. 11. Since the petitioner was initially recruited as a Stamp Auditor, a post for which there was no professional qualification required, therefore, the period spent by the petitioner at the Bar cannot be added towards the qualifying service. 11. In H.S.Maunder’s case (supra), the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition for the reason that the petitioner is a Law Graduate without which he was not eligible to compete for appointment to the post of Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch). Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by observing to the following effect: “5. Mr. Moudgil, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of Supreme Court in The Secretary (Estt.), Railway Board Vs. Shri D. Francis Paul, 1996 (4) SCT 684 to contend that anyone dealing on legal side would be clothed with the conditions as envisaged under rule 4.2. In D. Francis Paul’s case (supra) petitioners were only legal assistants. It is, however, different matter that they were not allowed the relief on altogether different grounds. Mr. Moudgil also relies upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India and another Vs. Dharmalingam, AIR 1994 SC 592 which deals with pari-materia rule and in which the petitioners were held entitled to similar relief. 6. For the reasons stated above, these petitions are allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to give benefit of rule 4.2 to the petitioners and calculate their pensionary benefits accordingly. Petitioners shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits. Let the arrears be calculated within four weeks and made to the petitioners within next two weeks from today. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.” 12. In S. Dharmalingam’s case (supra) while examining the parimateria provision contained in Rule 30 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the Court has set aside the denial of benefit for the reason that the petitioner was not a first appointee to the service. 13. The judgment in Trilok Nath Gupta’s case (supra) that benefit of Rule 4.2 can be given only at the time of first recruitment is contrary to the Supreme Court judgment in S. Dharmalingam’s case (supra). Therefore, the said judgment cannot be made basis for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 14. Similar Rule 2423-A contained in Railway Establishment Manual, Vol.II came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Secretary (Estt.) Railway Board & another Vs. Therefore, the said judgment cannot be made basis for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 14. Similar Rule 2423-A contained in Railway Establishment Manual, Vol.II came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Secretary (Estt.) Railway Board & another Vs. D. Francis Paul & others (1996) 10 SCC 134 . All the pensioners in the aforesaid case were recruited as Legal Assistants after putting 8 years of practice at the Bar. Such pensioners were given benefit by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The judgment of the Tribunal was upheld by the Supreme Court. Similar view was reiterated in the case of retirees of Railway in a judgment reported as Union of India & others Vs. V.D.Dubey (Dead) by LRs, [2009(6) Law Herald (SC) 4198] : (2010) 2 SCC 225 . 15. Rule 30 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 is also pari-materia with Rule 4.2-A of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. Such Rule came up for interpretation before the Supreme Court in Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Delhi & another Vs. M.V.Sastry & another (1997) 7 SCC 494 . Though in the said case, the post for which appointment was to be made was not found to be requiring a Post Graduate Research or specialist qualification. The Court though observed that the intention of the Rule is to compensation a government servant for the time taken by him in securing the specialist qualifications or experience which are essential for appointment to the post to which he is appointed. 16. Coming to the facts of the present case, Punjab Civil Services Rules contemplated 23 years as the minimum age and 37 years as the maximum age, when a candidate is Barrister, Advocate, Vakil or Pleader at the time of appointment of the petitioner. Keeping in view the said fact, since the petitioner was a Pleader, therefore, the age of recruitment is 25 upto the maximum age of 37 years. Thus, he would be entitled to add his years of practice at the Bar to the qualifying service. Such is the view taken by this Court in Raj Kumar Gupta’s case (supra) as also H.S.Maunder’s case (supra). Therefore, the period spent by the petitioner at the Bar i.e. from 13.08.1959 to 31.07.1961 is required to be taken into consideration for the purposes of qualifying service. 17. Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed. Such is the view taken by this Court in Raj Kumar Gupta’s case (supra) as also H.S.Maunder’s case (supra). Therefore, the period spent by the petitioner at the Bar i.e. from 13.08.1959 to 31.07.1961 is required to be taken into consideration for the purposes of qualifying service. 17. Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the period spent by the petitioner at the Bar for the purposes of qualifying service. ---------0.B.S.0------------