Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—The present batch of the cases is filed by the retired workmen of respondent Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Banswara for claiming pension under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension), Rules, 1996 and the facts are illustratively taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 194/2009- Bhagawan Giri S/o Nathu Giri vs. the State of Rajasthan and others. 2. The petitioner Bhagawan Giri S/O Sh. Nathu Giri was initially appointed as work-charge employee on muster roll basis as Fitter on 15.12.1962 and thereafter, he was posted at Mahi Dam Project on 20.8.1964. He was given the regular pay scale of Fitter cum Boring Operator w.e.f. 01.05.1966 and was conferred the semi-permanent status under the Work Charge Employees Service Rules, 1964 (since repealed in the year 1994). The petitioner’s services were absorbed against the 43 regular posts (work-charge) created by the respondent - State vide order Annex.1 dated 30.04.1981 by which 43 such work-charge employees were absorbed on the posts so created and the petitioner at serial No. 12 in the said order, was also absorbed as Boring Operator whereas another person Mr. Prabhakar Waghdare at serial No. 33 was also so absorbed as Senior Mistri. The petitioner Bhagawan Giri was retrenched on 4.3.1983 after completion of more than 21 years of service as work charge employee. Without challenging the retrenchment in any competent Court, the petitioner, however, made a representation to the respondent authority, namely, the Executive Engineer, Dam Sub Division-I, Mahi Project, Banswara vide Annex.4 dated 2.11.2007 for grant of pension to him as he had completed more than 20 years of the qualifying services and after serving a notice for demand of justice vide Annex.6 dated 8.12.2008, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 5.1.2009 with the following prayers: “i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to grant the pensionary benefits along with gratuity to the petitioner after completion of 21 years of service w.e.f. 1.4.1983 along with arrears of pension with all consequential benefits. ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to grant interest on the arrears of pension and other retiral benefits to the extent of 18% per annum from the date the same had become due till the date of payment. ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to grant interest on the arrears of pension and other retiral benefits to the extent of 18% per annum from the date the same had become due till the date of payment. iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to implement the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Prabhakar Waghdare in the case of the petitioner and to direct the respondents to confer him the benefit of pensionary and other retiral benefits alongwith interest with all consequential benefits.” 3. Upon issuance of the notices, the respondent – Irrigation Department has filed a reply to the writ petition on 07.01.2010 and have disputed the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension. 4. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner was entitled to the grant of pension and he drew the attention of the Court towards the judgment rendered by a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of his another colleague referred to above, namely Prabhakar Waghdare vs. State of Rajasthan - S.B. CWP No. 5052/1993 decided on 08.09.2005. A copy of the said judgment is placed on record as Annex.7 of this writ petition in which the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition and held the said person Prabhakar Waghdare was entitled to the grant of benefit of pension upon his regularisation in the service with effect from 01.03.1979 under the same order dated 30.04.1981, Annex.1 which is common to the present petitioner as wall as the said person – Prabhakar Waghdare. The relevant extract of the said judgment dtd.8.9.2005 of the coordinate bench is quoted below for ready reference. “Heard counsel for the parties. The respondents in the quite unequivocal terms stated that the petitioner at his own opted for voluntary retrenchment from service and, therefore, pensionary benefits were not allowed to him and for such agreement the respondents were having empowerment under an order dated 22.11.1984 (Anx.R/1). I have examined the document dated 22.11.2984 which relates to the muster-roll/work charged employees and not to the regular employees. The petitioner on being taken on regular cadre under the order dated 30.04.1981 w.e.f. 01.03.1979 ceased to be a work charged employee, as such the document Anx.R/1 dated 22.11.1984 could not be made applicable for him. I have examined the document dated 22.11.2984 which relates to the muster-roll/work charged employees and not to the regular employees. The petitioner on being taken on regular cadre under the order dated 30.04.1981 w.e.f. 01.03.1979 ceased to be a work charged employee, as such the document Anx.R/1 dated 22.11.1984 could not be made applicable for him. The respondents, therefore, erroneously entered into the agreement with the petitioner with regard to voluntary retirement in pursuant to the document referred above. The petitioner being a regular government servant is entitled for pensio-nary benefits as then provided under Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. In view of it I am having no hesitation in holding that the respondents erroneously treated the petitioner an employee retrenched from service. The petitioner, is, therefore, declared entitled for getting pensionary benefits. Accordingly this petition for writ is allowed, the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner retired from service w.e.f. 30.05.1988 and further to allow him all post retrial benefits including pension by taking into consideration 02.08.1963 as the date of his initial appointment. The petitioner shall be entitled for getting arrears accrued to him as a consequence of direction above and interest @ 10% per annum. The respondents may adjust the amount already paid to the petitioner by treating him an employee retrenched from service while making the payment of arrears to him. No order as to costs. Sd/- (GOVIND MATHUR),J.” 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manoj Bhandari and Mr.S.P. Arora also relied upon the judgment in the case of Narayan vs. State of Rajasthan - S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1982/2004 decided on 10.03.2005 in which the same learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of another similarly situated work charge employee by observing as under: “I have heard counsel for the parties. The respondents have admitted the fact that the petitioner was appointed in the services of the respondents as a work-charged employee w.e.f. 10.11.1973 and he remained in employment of the respondents uptil 26.06.1992 the day on which the petitioner was voluntarily retired from service. It is also admitted that at the time of retirement the petitioner was working as Massion Gr. I in the pay scale of Rs. 910/1520. the respondents have also admitted that increments were allowed to the petitioner time to time and personal pay of Rs. 30/- was also given to him. It is also admitted that at the time of retirement the petitioner was working as Massion Gr. I in the pay scale of Rs. 910/1520. the respondents have also admitted that increments were allowed to the petitioner time to time and personal pay of Rs. 30/- was also given to him. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964 classifies work-charged employees in three categories viz. permanent status, semi permanent status and casual. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964 provides that work-charged employees having 10 yeas of services shall be entitled to be conferred with permanent status subject to be conferred with permanent status subject to the condition that their service record stands satisfactory in opinion of the competent authority. In view of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964 the petitioner also became entitled to be considered for grant of permanent status after completion of 10 years of service. It appears that the competent authority in spite of the fact that the petitioner completed 10 years of service did not consider his case for conferment of permanent status and as such continued him with semi permanent status uptil his retirement after completion of more than 18 years of service. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964 it was obligatory for the competent authority to consider candidature of the petitioner for conferment of permanent status and should have granted permanent status if service record of the petitioner was satisfactory. As stated above, the respondents allowed all annual increments to the petitioner, personal pay was also allowed to him and he was allowed to work in the respondent department as Massion Gr.I. These facts clearly established that the services of the petitioners were satisfactory. At this stage when the petitioner is claiming pensionary rights it shall not be appropriate to refer the matter to competent authority to consider the petitioner for conferment of permanent status. The facts stated above clearly establish that the services rendered by the petitioner were satisfactory and, therefore, petitioner is deemed to be a work-charged employee of permanent status. In view of whatever stated above, the petitioner is required to be treated as a permanent work-charged employee. The petitioner being treated as permanent employee became entitled for all pensionary benefits as provided under Rule 22-A of the Rules of 1964. In view of whatever stated above, the petitioner is required to be treated as a permanent work-charged employee. The petitioner being treated as permanent employee became entitled for all pensionary benefits as provided under Rule 22-A of the Rules of 1964. In view of it the respondents while denying pensionary benefits to the petitioner acted arbitrarily. The writ petition, therefore, is allowed with a direction for respon-dents to allow pensionary benefits to the petitioner in accordance with Rule 22-A of the Rules of 1964. if any other post retrial benefits except the pensionary benefits have been given to the petitioner then the same shall be adjusted against the pension which is required to be given to the petitioner from the date of his retirement i.e. 26.06.1992. No order as to costs. Sd/- (GOVIND MATHUR), J.” 6. Mr. Manoj Bhandari vehemently submitted that with the passing of order Annex.1. dated 30.04.1981 and upon the absorption of the services of the petitioner against the regular posts, as Boring Operator w.e.f 01.03.1979, the petitioner became a regular Civil servant governed by the provisions of Rajasthan Services Rules and Pension Rules of 1996 and would no longer be governed by the provisions of Work Charge Employees Rules 1964 nor by the Standing Orders for service conditions applicable to the Mahi Dam Project namely the “Standing Orders Workmen engaged on Workcharged Establishments in Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Banswara” and therefore the petitioner was clearly entitled to the grant of pension under 1996 Rules. He also drew the attention of the Court towards the Office Memorandum issued by the Finance Department of the Government of Rajasthan dated 13.07.1994 which is quoted below in extenso for ready reference: “GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN Finance (Gr.2) Department. MEMORANDUM No.F.1(26) FD/Gr.2/74 Dated 13.7.94 Sub:- Counting of work-charged service for pension on absorption/ appointment of work charged employees in regular post under Govt. ... The undersigned is directed to invite attention towards Finance Department Memorandum of even number dated 31.1.1977 as amended vide Finance Department Memorandum of even number dated 10.3.1977 and 24.4.1980 under which the work charged employees who were appointed/absorbed on regular post by conversion of work charged post into regular post under Government from time to time were allowed to elect either to continue to contribute towards Contributory Provident Fund or to opt for pensionary benefits under Rajasthan Service Rules. It has, however, been brought to the notice of government that number of work charged employees could not exercise option for one or the other reason as available under the aforesaid orders. No opportunity of exercising option for pension in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund was/has been allowed to those work charged employees who were absorbed/appointed on regular post after issue of the aforesaid orders, and as such, they could not exercise option for pension in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund. 2. Cases have also been brought to the notice of the Government in which work charged employees have opted for pension but recovery towards Contributory Provident Fund was not made for certain periods from their salary even though it was compulsory under the rules for those drawing pay in the prescribed pay scale. Consequently, the period of service rendered by them as work charged employee for which no Contributory Provident Fund was dedced, could not be counted as a service qualifying for pension. Such employees have been deprived for counting such period as qualifying service for no fault of theirs. It was the duty of the Drawing and Disbursing Officer that recovery towards Contributory Provident Fund should have invariably been made from the salary of the respective employee. 3. The matter has been considered and the Governor has been pleased to order that :- (1) on absorption /appointment of work charged employee regular post, the period of service rendered by him as work charged employee while drawing pay in the pay scale prescribed for him excluding the period of Muster Roll Service (daily wages/casual labour) be counted as a service qualifying for pension irrespective of whether deduction towards Contributory Provident Fund was made from his salary or not. (2) such work charged employees may be allowed option either to retain Contributory Provident Provident within two months from the date of issue of this order or from the date of his appointment/ absorption on regular post, as the case may be. In cases where option is not received within the stipulated period, it shall be deemed that he has opted for pension rules in lieu of Contributory Provident fund. 4. The Contributory Provident fund account of the aforesaid work charged employees who has opted or deemed to have opted for pension may be completed and closed. In cases where option is not received within the stipulated period, it shall be deemed that he has opted for pension rules in lieu of Contributory Provident fund. 4. The Contributory Provident fund account of the aforesaid work charged employees who has opted or deemed to have opted for pension may be completed and closed. Employer's share with interest may be credited to General Revenue of the State and employee's share with interest may be transferred to General Provident Fund account without waiting for the date of retirement of the respective employee and necessary entry to this effecd may be made in the Service Book regarding verification of work charged service as service qualifying for pension. 5. These orders shall apply to all such work charged employees who are in the service of Government on the date of issue of this order. Past cases already decided otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this order, shall not be re-opened. But in respect of pending cases of (i) those employees who have died, the application from the widow/legal heirs for grant of pension would be treated as option; (ii) those employees who have already retired without exercising option may also exercise fresh option under these orders. By Order of the Governor Sd/- (Ram Avtar) Officer on Special Duty (Rules)” 7. Mr. Manoj Bhandari appearing for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner ought to have been deemed to have opted for grant of pension as he never gave his option for Contributory Provident Fund as required in clause 3(2) of the said Office Memorandum Dated 13.07.1994. 8. Another important Circular of the State Government issued by the Finance Department is the Circular dated 04.09.2006 according to which after completion of 10 years of qualifying services after 01.10.1996 with reference to Decision No. 5 of the Government of Rajasthan appended under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996, work charge employee will be deemed to have rendered 10 years of qualifying services and will be entitled to the grant of pension. The said circular dated 04.09.2006 is also quoted below for ready reference: ^^jktLFkku ljdkj foÙk foHkkx ¼fu;e vuqHkkx½ la-ia- 14¼1½foÙk@fu;e@2006 t;iqj] fnukad 4-9-2006 ifji= fo"k; 10 o"kZ ls vf/kd dh lsok iw.kZ dj pqds odZpktZ dfeZ;ksa dks isa'ku ifjykHk Loh—r djus ckcr~A foÙk foHkkx esa le; le; ij ,sls izdj.k izkIr gksrs jgs gSa ftuesa fnukad 1-10-1996 ds i'pkr~ 10 o"kZ dh isa'ku ;ksX; lsok iw.kZ dj pqds odZpktZ dfeZ;ksa dks lh-ih-,Q- dk Hkqxrku fd, tkus ds ckotwn izdj.k dks iqu% [kksydj jktLFkku flfoy lsok ¼isa'ku½ fu;e] 1996 ds vUrxZr isa'kujh ifjykHk izLrkfor fd;s tkrs gSaA funs'kd] jkT; chdk ,oa izko/kk;h fuf/k foHkkx }kjk Hkh odZpktZ deZpkfj;ksa ds ckjs esa lh-ih-,Q- dh jkf'k dh LFkkUrj.k izfof"V ¼Vh-bZ½ dh vuqefr foÙk foHkkx ls ekaxh tk jgh gA bl izdkj ds izdj.kksa dk foÙk foHkkx ls ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA jktLFkku flfoy lsok ¼isa'ku½ fu;e] 1996 ds fu;e 14 ds uhps vafdr jktdh; fu.kZ; la[;k 1 ds fcUnw la[;k 5 esa fuEu izko/kku fd;k gqvk gS%& ^^¼5½ ;s vkns'k mu odZ pkTMZ deZpkfj;ksa ij Hkh ykxw gksaxs ftu ij odZ pkTMZ fu;e] 1964 ¼vc fujLr gks x,½ ;k lacaf/kr foHkkxksa }kjk tkjh fd, x, LFkk;h vkns'k ykxw gksrs Fks rFkk ftUgksaus U;wure 10 ¼nl½ o"kksZa dh vgZadkjh lsok dh gS rFkk tks mu ij izHkko'kkyh osruekuksa esa osru vkgfjr dj jgs Fks mUgsa isa'ku Loh—r djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fu;fer fd;k x;k le>k tk,xkA** ^^mä izko/kku ls Li"V gS fd ,sls odZpktZ deZpkjh] ftudh 1-10-96 ds i'pkr~ 10 o"kZ ls vf/kd dh isa'ku ;ksX; lsok gks xbZ gS] muds Åij Lor% gh mä isa'ku fu;e ykxw gks x, gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa os isa'kujh ykHkksas ds ik= gS ,oa ,sls izdj.kksa dks foÙk foHkkx esa vuqeksnu gsrq lUnfHkZr djus dh vko';drk ugha gSA budk fiVkjk lacaf/kr foHkkx ,oa funs'kd] jkT; chek izko/kk;h fuf/k foHkkx }kjk vius Lrj ls fu;ekuqlkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA fu;eksa esa mä Li"V izko/kku gS ckotwn Hkh ;fn deZpkjh dks lh-ih-,Q- dk Hkqxrku dj fn;k x;k gks rks ,sls izdj.kksa dks iqu% [kksyk tkdj lh-ih-,Q- dh Hkqxrku dh xbZ jkf'k dks isa'kujh ykHkksa esa lek;kstu djrs gq, isa'kujh ifjykHk Loh—r dj fn, tkosaA ;fn lhih,Q dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;k gks rks fu;ekuqlkj funs'kd] jkT; chek ,oa izko/kk;h fuf/k foHkkx }kjk vius Lrj ls LFkkukUrj.k izfof"V tkjh dj nh tkos ,oa ,sls deZpkfj;ksa dks fcuk fdlh foyEc ds isa'kujh ifjykHk Loh—r fd, tkosaA ;fn deZpkjh dh fcuk isa'kujh ykHk izkIr gq, e`R;q gks xbZ gks rks ,slh fLFkfr esa deZpkjh dh fo/kok vFkok fu;ekuqlkj vkfJr }kjk isa'ku@ifjokj isa'ku dh ekax djus ij izdj.kksa dk 'kh?kz fuLrkj.k fd;k tkosA ¼lqHkk"k xxZ½ foÙk lfpo&r`rh; 9. Mr. Manoj Bhandari and Mr. S.P. Arora, the learned counsels for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Deetiya vs. State of Rajsthan - S.B. Civil writ petition No. 2487/2006 and 4 other writ petitions allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dtd. 7.7.2008 in the following manner:- “In this case following facts are not in dispute: (1) The petitioners were made permanent and they were working as permanent work charge employee of the respondent Department. (2) It is accepted by the respondent Department that there is provision for grant of pensionary benefits, which is Rule 22-A of the Rules of 1964. (3) It is no where disputed by the respondents that the petitioners are not entitled for voluntary retirement. More over, it is accepted that the application of the petitioners' for voluntary retirement was accepted by the Department and at the time of acceptance an agreement was singed by the employee in which certain conditions were imposed. When above facts are accepted then it is to be seen whether the petitioners are entitled for pensionary benefits for not. Obviously when the petitioners have completed more than 10 years of service, then they became entitled for pensionary benefits in accordance with Rule 22-A of the Rules of 1964. Upon perusal of whole of the reply filed by the respondents, it is revealed that the respondent's main contention for denial of pensionary benefits is an agreement arrived at in between the parties. I have perused the said agreement Annexure-R/1 filed by the respondents. In the said agreement, it is nowhere stated that the petitioners will not be entitled for pensionary benefits or will not claim pensionary benefits. Only assertion is made that in the event of acceptance of application for voluntary retirement, the employee will be entitled for gratuity and terminal benefits and other benefits. The plea of respondents with regard to denial of pension on the ground that petitioners did not opt for pension is not acceptable because there is no evidence on record to show that petitioners were given any opportunity to file there option after declaring them permanent. The plea of respondents with regard to denial of pension on the ground that petitioners did not opt for pension is not acceptable because there is no evidence on record to show that petitioners were given any opportunity to file there option after declaring them permanent. The denial of pension to the petitioners is an agreement which is said to be written by the parties and as per the reply of the respondents, both the parties are abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement. In none of the writ petitions, the denial of pensionary benefits has been made on the ground that the petitioners are not entitled for pensionary benefits. The denial of pensionary benefits is on the ground of signing agreement at the time of acceptance of application for voluntary retirement. In my opinion, there is no such provision in the Rules of 1964 that in the event of filing application for voluntary retirement, the employee is required to execute any agreement for his entitlement. The entitlement is to be adjudged in accordance with the Rules if an employee is entitled for pensionary benefits under the Rules then his case is to be considered in accordance with the Rules. The respondents cannot deny the pensionary benefits while saying that an agreement was arrived at between the parties when voluntary retirement application was filed. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, when the petitioners have completed more than 10 years of service and were made permanent and denial of pensionary benefits is on the basis of agreement arrived at between the parties, then, obviously the said ground for denial of pensionary benefits is totally contrary to law. The respondent's plea with regard to not filing option is also not acceptable because if such fact is correct then there was no need to ask petitioners to execute an agreement for retiral benefits. In my opinion the purpose of executing an agreement was to deny pensionary benefits, therefore, the reason for denial of pension to the petitioners is unconstitutional. The pensionary benefits cannot be disallowed to the petitioners on the ground that an agreement was signed by the employee and employer in the event of acceptance of application for voluntary retirement. In the service rules also there is no requirement to execute any agreement by the employee for grant of retiral benefits. The pensionary benefits cannot be disallowed to the petitioners on the ground that an agreement was signed by the employee and employer in the event of acceptance of application for voluntary retirement. In the service rules also there is no requirement to execute any agreement by the employee for grant of retiral benefits. Further, the ground raised by the respondents with regard to delay in filing the writ petition is rejected on the ground that pension is recurring cause of action. In this view of the matter, the denial of pensionary benefits is totally unconstitutional and contrary to the rules. Therefore, all the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioners while ignoring the fact that agreement was arrived between the petitioners and the Department in which only gratuity and terminal benefits were to be paid and petitioners have paid CPF amount and gratuity, therefore, petitioners are not entitled for pensionary benefits. The respondents shall consider the entitlement of the petitioners for pension as per their length of service as per rules because after completion of ten years of service, work charge employee becomes entitled for pensionary benefits. The respondents are directed to finalize the case of the petitioners for pensionary benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Further, it is directed that CPF amount if already paid to the petitioners may be adjusted from the arrears and remaining arrears may be paid to the petitioners. No order as to costs. Sd/- (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS),J.” 10. They also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Mastan Bee vs. General Managerm, South Central Railway and another reported in (2003) 1 SCC 8 and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurdial Singh vs. Union of India and ors. reported in (2001) 8 SCC 8 . In the later judgment dealing with the Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme, 1972, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “8. We have noticed with disgust that the respondent Authorities have adopted a hyper-technical approach while dealing with the case of a freedom fighter and ignored the basic principles/objectives of the scheme intended to give the benefit to the sufferers in the freedom movement. We have noticed with disgust that the respondent Authorities have adopted a hyper-technical approach while dealing with the case of a freedom fighter and ignored the basic principles/objectives of the scheme intended to give the benefit to the sufferers in the freedom movement. The contradictions and discrepancies, as noticed hereinabove, cannot be held to be material which could be made the basis of depriving the appellant of his right to get the pension. The case of the appellant has been disposed of by ignoring the mandate of law and the Scheme. The impugned order also appears to have been passed with a biased and close mind completely ignoring the verdict of this Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari's case. We further feel that after granting the pension to the appellant, the respondents were not justified to reject his claim on the basis of material which already existed, justifying the grant of pension in his favour. The appellant has, unnecessarily, been dragged to litigation for no fault of his. The High Court has completely ignored its earlier judgments in CWP No. 3790 of 1994 entitled Mohan Singh vs. Union of India decided on 1-6-1995 and CWP 14442 of 1995 decided on 11-12-1995. 9. We are satisfied that the order of the respondent Authorities impugned before the High Court (Annexure P-14) dated 1-11-2000 is liable to be set aside and the appellant entitled to the grant of relief of pension. However, keeping in view the lapse of time and peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant him the pension with effect from 12-3-1973 as claimed and feel that the ends of justice would be met if the appellant is granted pension with effect from March, 1996 when he was forced to file Writ Petition No. 12350 of 1996. 10. Accordingly the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the High Court impugned in this appeal and the order of the respondents dated 1-11-2000 (Annexure P-14). The appellant is held entitled to the grant of pension by the State of Punjab and the Union Government as determined vide Annexures P-9 and P-10 but with effect from March, 1996. Accordingly the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the High Court impugned in this appeal and the order of the respondents dated 1-11-2000 (Annexure P-14). The appellant is held entitled to the grant of pension by the State of Punjab and the Union Government as determined vide Annexures P-9 and P-10 but with effect from March, 1996. The arrears shall be calculated and paid to the appellant positively within a period of six weeks from today, failing which he is held entitled to interest at the rate of 12 Per Cent per annum from March, 1996 till the date, arrears are actually paid. The appellant is also held entitled to the payment of costs quantified at Rs. 5,000.00.” 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Rukma vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2000(3) WLC (Raj.) 102 in which this Court held as under: “The appellant who is the widow of the deceased Government employee had exercised her option on April 4, 1977 in view of Clause 9 of the Memorandum dated January 31, 1977, the appellant is entitled to invoke the benefit of the notification dated March 10, 1977. The said notification dated March 10, 1977 deals with the workcharged employees who were absorbed on regular posts but died prior to the date of notification January 31, 1977 which directs that such employees shall be deemed to have exercised their option for pension under these orders unless the members of family of such deceased specifically make a request that they may be paid contributory Provident Fund benefits due to the deceased. The said notification also directs the Head Office to ascertain from the member of the family of the deceased who is entitled to receive the retirement benefits whether he/she would like to receive contributory benefit or not, but as already noticed, the appellant herself opted for pension as per the amended provisions on April 4, 1977 itself. It is also not the case of the department that she had requested them to pay the Contributory Provident Fund. In our view, the appellant is entitled to exercise the right successfully to get the family pension and arrears accrued, as such the contention of the respondents that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches cannot at all be accepted. In our view, the appellant is entitled to exercise the right successfully to get the family pension and arrears accrued, as such the contention of the respondents that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches cannot at all be accepted. It is settled law that in case of pension, the cause of action is recurring and therefore there is no question of any delay or laches.” 12. On the other hand Mr. L.K. Purohit and Mr. S.M. Toshaniwal appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed these writ petitions and submitted that the writ petitions filed in this Court not only suffer from the vice of delay and laches, but the petitioners are also not entitled to the grant of pension as their services as workcharge employees were governed only by the Standing Orders applicable to Mahi Dam Project work-charge employees and their services were not governed by the provisions of Work-Charge Employees Rules, 1964 or Rajasthan Service Rules or Pension Rules of 1996. They urged that the Pension Scheme introduced for the workcharge employees by insertion of Clause 22A in the Work Charge Employees Rules, 1964 w.e.f. 01.04.1982 could not be invoked in the present case as the Standing Orders of Mahi Dam Project were so amended to give pension benefit to the work charge employees of the Mahi Project only by the Circular of the Labour Department of the Government of Rajasthan dated 23.01.1990 only and since the said amendment in the Standing Orders was not retrospective, therefore, the present petitioner who were either retrenched from such establishment of Mahi Dam Project or had sought voluntary retirement and in some cases widows of such deceased work-charge employees could not be now given the pension under the Civil Pension Rules of 1996 since the employees or their husbands had been retrenched or voluntarily retired much prior to 23.01.1990. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Kunji Raman reported in (1997) 2 SCC 517 = RLW 1997(2) SC 198, Panchi Devi vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2009) 2 SCC 589 and Punjab State Electricity Board vs. Jagjivan Ram reported in (2009) 3 SCC 661 . The Circular dated 23.01.1990 relied upon by the respondents is also quoted below for ready reference: ^^jktLFkku ljdkj Je foHkkx Øekad% ,Q 7¼2½ ,lvks@07@ t;iqj] fnukad 23-01-1990 vkns'k ekgh ifj;kstuk deZpkjh la?k] ckalokM+k ¼baVd½ }kjk ekgh ctkt lkxj ifj;kstuk ckalokM+k ds LFkk;h vkns'kksa esa isU'kujh csfufQV ykxw djus ckcr~ la'kks/ku gsrq vkosnu izLrqr fd;k x;kA blh iz;kstu gsrq flapkbZ foHkkx deZpkjh la?k] mn;iqj ¼ch,e,l½ ,oa ekgh deZpkjh la?k ¼,p,e,l½ }kjk Hkh viuk vkosnu la'kks/ku djus gsrq izLrqr fd;k x;kA bl vkosnu ckcr~ eq[; vfHk;Urk] ekgh ctkt lkxj ifj;kstuk ckalokM+k ls fVIi.kh ekaxh x;h] eq[; vfHk;Urk dh vksj ls ;g lwfpr fd;k x;k fd ,sls izko/kku fd;s tkus dh Loh—fr jkT; ljdkj ls pkgh x;h gS Loh—fr izkIr gksus rd le; fn;s tkus dh ekax dh x;hA bl la'kks/ku ds vkosnu dh lquokbZ gsrq nksuksa i{kksa dks fofHkUu rkjh[kksa ij cqyk;k x;kA eq[; vfHk;Urk ds izfrfuf/k] Jfedksa dh vksj ls ekgh ifj;kstuk deZpkjh la?k ds izfrfuf/k] ekgh deZpkjh la?k ds izfrfuf/k] flapkbZ deZpkjh la?k ds izfrfuf/k mifLFkr gq,A rhuksa ;wfu;u ds }kjk okrkZ ds nkSjku ;g fuosnu fd;k fd jkT; ljdkj ds vU; foHkkxksa esa isU'ku ckcr~ tks izko/kku fn;s x;s gSa mUgha ds vk/kkj ij ekgh ifj;kstuk ds LFkk;h vkns'kksa esa Hkh la'kks/ku fd;kA vr% lquokbZ ds i'pkr~ LFkk;h vkns'kksa esa fuEu izdkj la'kks/ku fd;s tkus ds vkns'k fn;s tkrs gS %& /kkjk 13 ds i'pkr~ /kkjk 13¼v½ u;h /kkjk ds :i esa fuEu izdkj ls izfrLFkkfir dh tkrh gS %& ¼1½ fu;e 3 ds vUrxZr 10 o"kZ dh lsok ij ;k 10 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ djus ij ;k LFkk;h ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus ij dkexkj dks va'knk;h Hkfo"; fuf/k esa va'knku djuk fujUrj j[kus gsrq p;u djus ;k isU'ku ykHk gsrq fodYi djus dk vf/kdkj gksxk tks ifjf'k"V ^d* esa fn;s izi= ds vuqlkj fn;k tk ldsxkA ¼2½ mi iSjk ¼1½ ds vUrxZr va'knk;h Hkfo"; fuf/k ykHk dh ,ot esa isU'ku ykHk p;u djus ds fodYi dk iz;ksx djus ij fuEu dk;Zfof/k viuk;h tk;sxh%& 1- fodYi dh fnukad ij va'knk;h Hkfo"; fuf/k esa dkexkj ds gd esa miyC/k dkexkj }kjk vfHknku dh x;h jkf'k C;kt lfgr lkekU; Hkfo"; fuf/k esa mlds gd esa LFkkukUrfjr dh tkosxhA 2- mi;qZä fnukad ij va'knk;h Hkfo"; fuf/k esa dkexkj ds gd esa miyC/k jkt- ljdkj }kjk va'knku dh jkf'k C;kt lfgr lkekU; jktlo [kkrs esa LFkkukUrfjr fd;k tkosxkA 3- ,slh n'kk esa bl rkjh[k ls iwoZ dh vof/k esa dkexkj }kjk dh x;h lsok,sa isU'ku ds ykHk ds fy, lax.kuk djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA;g ekurs gq, fd iwoz dh lsok,W isU'ku ;ksX; izLFkkiu esa ds x;h gksA ijUrq isU'ku ;ksX; lsok dk ykHk dsoy mruh gh vof/k@vof/k;ksa esa dh x;h lsok vof/k ds fy, ekuk tk;sxk ftruh vof/k esa mlds }kjk va'knk;h Hkfo"; fuf/k esa vfHknku fd;k x;k gksA 4- ,sls dkexkj tks iwoZ esa gh LFkk;h ?kksf"kr fd;s tk pqds gS bu fu;eksa ds ykxw gksus dh frfFk ls 6 ekg dh vof/k ds Hkhrj ifjf'k"B ^d* esa fn;s x;s izi= ds vuqlkj fyf[kr esa viuk fodYi nsuk gksxk rFkk ,sls dkexkj tks bu fu;eksa ds ykxw gksus ds i'pkr~ LFkk;h ?kksf"kr fd;s tkrs gS mUgsa LFkk;h gksus dh frfFk ls fyf[kr esa viuk fodYi nsuk gksxk rFkk ,sls dkexkj tks bu fu;eksa ds ykxw gksus ds i'pkr~ LFkk;h ?kksf"kr fd;s tkrs gS mUgsa LFkk;h gksus dh frfFk ls fyf[kr esa viuk fodYi nsuk gksxkA 5- ,d ckj iz;ksx fd;k x;k fodYi vfUre gksxkA 6- ,sls O;fä dks fu;r vof/k esa fodYi dk iz;ksx ugha djrs gS] mUgsa va'knk;h Hkfo"; fuf/k ds ykHk izkIr fd;s gq, ekuk tk;sxkA fodYi fu;kstd dks lalwfpr fd;k tkosxk vkSj l{ke vf/kdkjh tks mls izkIr djrk gS }kjk izfr gLrk{kfjr fd;k tkosxkA dkexkj }kjk iz;ksx fd;s x;s fodYi dk lsok iqfLrdk esa fpidk;k tkosxk vkSj mldh lR;izfr mldh oS;fäd i=koyh esa j[kh tkosxhA ¼3½ mi iSjk ¼1½ ds izko/kkuksa ds v/khu dkexkj dks isU'ku ykHk ljdkj }kjk le; le; ij tkjh jktlsodksa dks isU'ku dh Loh—fr dks 'kkflr djus okys fu;eksa ds vuqlkj Lohdk;Z gksaxsA ¼4½ ,sls ekeyksa esa ftlesa dkexkj tks isU'ku ykHk gsrq mlds fodYi djus ls iwoZ ml ij ykxw va'knk;h Hkfo"; fuf/k fu;eksa ds vUrxZr va'knku djuk okafNr Fkk fdUrq mlus fdUgha dkj.kksa ls dk;Z izHkkfjr dkexkj va'knk;h Hkfo"; fuf/k fu;eksa ds izHkko esa vkus ds i'pkr~ fdlh vof/k ;k vof/k;ksa ds nkSjku va'knku djus gsrq vuqer fd;k tkosxk rkfd isU'ku gsrq vUrfjr vof/k ;k vof/k;ksa dsk Hkh lax.kuk dh tk ldsaA ¼5½ bl iSjk ds mi iSjk ¼1½ ls ¼4½ esa vUrfoZ"V fdlh ckr ds gksrs Hkh dkexkj ftlus iwoZ esa Hkh ljdkj }kjk le; le; ij tkjh fu;eksa ds vuqlkj isU'ku ykHk gsrq fodYi dj fn;k Fkk] dks bu fu;eksa ds vUrxZr is'ku ykHk gsrq fodYi fd;k gqvk ekuk tkosxkA ¼6½ fu;e 13¼3½ esa ifjf'k"V ^d* dks tksM+k tkrk gSA izekf.kr la'kksf/kr LFkk;h vkns'k vkt fnukad 22-1-90 dks lquk;s x;sA layXu ifjf'k"V ^d* ¼,l-,u- eYgks=k½ la;qä Je vk;qä ¼iz'kklu½ ,oa izekf.krdrkZ vf/kdkjh jktLFkku] t;iqj** 13. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, the crux of the matter is as to whether the petitioners who were only work-charge employees of the respondent Mahi Dam Project, Banswara, but who had rendered qualifying services of 20 years or more are now entitled to the grant of pension under Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 or not, irrespective of the fact whether they had given their option for switching over to such Pension Scheme in place of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme applicable to them or not and what is the overriding effect of Standing Orders applicable to respondent - Mahi Dam Project employees and whether the petitioners despite there being delay in filling the writ petitions can be held entitled to the grant of pension or not and if so whether pension now deserves to be paid to them with adjustment of their Contributory Fund Payment already made to them at the time of retirement or retrenchment as the case may be. 14. It is true that the petitioners worked as work-charge employees in respondent Mahi Dam Project of Government of Rajasthan and were entitled to be given the status of semi permanent and permanent employees upon completion of 2 years and 10 years respectively. Their services were undoubtedly governed by the Standing Orders applicable to work-charge employees in the said Mahi Dem Project. Clause 65 of the Standing order also provided for 1964 Work-Charge Employees Rules not to have any effect for such work-charge employees working in a Mahi Dam Project. It is also true that the present set of writ petitions have been filed with the lapse larger number of years of retirement or retrenchment of the employees concerned, but at the same time it is equally true that some of the similarly situated persons who filed the writ petitions in this Court came to be granted the said benefit of pension under different Circulars and Orders quoted above namely the Office Memorandum dated 13.7.1994 and Circular dtd.4.9.2006 holding entitled even the work charge employees covered by the 1964 Work Charge Employees Rules to be given such petitioner benefits and such benefits which were conferred upon such work-charge employees by insertion of Clause 22A in the Work-Charge Rules 1964, similar benefits were extended to the work charge employees of Mahi Dam Project vide amendment dated 23.01.1990. 15. 15. It is true that in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Kunji Raman (supra) relied upon by the respondents, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Standing Orders or subsidiary Rules framed for particular class of employees working on specified projects and such Rules framed under Rule 142 of the Rajasthan Services Rules 1951 does not create any distinction for such employees treated as a different class in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the work-charge employees of Mahi Dam Project who were being paid such house-rent allowance, project allowance and leave encashment allowance on the ground that the general Provision of Rajasthan Services Rules, 1951 and Rajasthan Service (Concession on Project) Rules were not applicable to them. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “A work-charged establishment thus differs from a regular establishment which is permanent in nature. Setting up and continuance of a work-charged establishment is dependent upon the Government undertaking a project or a scheme or a 'work' and availability of fund for executing it. So far as employees engaged on work-charged establishments are concerned, not only their recruitment and service conditions but the nature of work and duties to be performed by them are not the same as those of the employees of the regular establishment. A regular establishment and a workcharged establishment are two separate types of establishments and the persons employed on those establishments thus form two separate and distinct classes. For that reason, if a separate set of rules are framed for the persons engaged on the work-charged establishment and the general rules applicable to persons working on the regular establishment are not made applicable to them, it cannot be said that they are treated in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner by the Government. It is well-settled that the Government has the power to frame different rules for different classes of employees. We, therefore, reject the contention raised on behalf of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 653 of 1993 that Clauses (g), (h) and (i) of Rule of RSR are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and uphold the view taken by the High Court. 9. The Project Rules have been framed by the Government in exercise of the power available to it under Rule 42 of the RSR. 9. The Project Rules have been framed by the Government in exercise of the power available to it under Rule 42 of the RSR. They are subsidiary Rules made for the purpose of granting special concessions and allowances to Government servants working on projects. When non-application of the main rules, namely, RSR to work-charged employees is not found to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 by the High Court it is difficult to appreciate how the subsidiary Rules for that reason only can be held to be violative of those Articles. The High Court failed to consider this aspect and in our opinion, erroneously struck down Rules 2(b) and (d) of the 1962 Project Rules and Rules 4(2) and (4) of the 1975 Project Rules.” 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Panchi Devi (supra) also clearly held with Rule 22A inserted in 1964 Work-Charge Employees Rules was not retrospective in operation and would apply only prospective from 01.09.1982. Therefore, those work-charge employees who had been retrenched or retired prior to 01.09.1982 were not entitled to be given benefit as per Rule 22A. The relevant abstract of the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference: “5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, however, would draw our attention to the fact that in the case of one Prabhati Devi, whose husband was also working as a work charge employee and did not opt for pension, a learned Single Judge of the same High Court held that the benefit of the said rule can be claimed even by the widows whose husbands died prior to coming into force of the said Rules. 6. Before the said learned Judge, a contention was raised that the Sub-rule (6) of Rule 22A having prescribed a date namely 1.9.1982, the same was prospective in nature. The said contention was repelled stating: I am not impressed with the submission of learned Additional Advocate General that the widows of the work charged employees died after September1, 1982 were only entitled to opt for pension. I do not find any difference between two widows to work charged employees, one who died prior to September 1, 1982 and another who died after the said date. Interpretation of sub rule (6) of Rule 22A, that discriminates between the two widows cannot be accepted. I do not find any difference between two widows to work charged employees, one who died prior to September 1, 1982 and another who died after the said date. Interpretation of sub rule (6) of Rule 22A, that discriminates between the two widows cannot be accepted. Language of sub rule (6) is very clear and it mandates that with effect from September 1, 1982 the widows of deceased work charged employees who were permanent and eligible for CPF but died without opting for pension, could also exercise option for pension. The special appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the order of the learned Single Judge was dismissed as withdrawn by the High Court on the plea that issue was settled by another Division Bench of the High Court in D.B. civil Special Appeal No. 782 of 2002 titledState of Rajasthan vs. Girraj, decided on 03rd January, 2003. The Rajasthan High Court did not declare the said provision to be ultra vires. 7. Prior to insertion of Rule 22A by way of amendment in the Rules, there was no provision for grant of pensionary benefits to the employees who retired as work charge employees. The amendment was made vide notification dated September 17, 1980. It was provided by Rule 22 that a work charge employee having been or on being declared permanent on completing 10 years service shall have the option to elect either to continue to contribute towards contributory provident fund or to opt for pensionary benefits. Sub-clause (iv) of the said rule provides that the option shall have to be exercised in writing within a period of six months from the date of amended rule came into force from 17.08.1980. 8. Vide notification dated December 11, 1989 Subrule (6) was added in Rule 22 which was made effective from September 1, 1982, in terms whereof widows of the work charged employees were also given the liberty to exercise such option. The State, therefore, had indisputably made the said rules applicable with a prospective effect i.e. from 1.9.1982. If that be so, the question of grant of any benefit in favour of the appellant herein did not and could not arise as admittedly her husband died in the year 1978. The State, therefore, had indisputably made the said rules applicable with a prospective effect i.e. from 1.9.1982. If that be so, the question of grant of any benefit in favour of the appellant herein did not and could not arise as admittedly her husband died in the year 1978. The question of exercising the right of option, as provided for, under Rule 22A would arise only if the employees were eligible therefore on the date of coming into force thereof. It has not been given retrospective effect. As no retrospective effect to the rule has been given, the question of extending the benefit thereto to those who were not otherwise entitled thereto does not and cannot arise. 9. A delegated legislation, as is well known, is ordinarily prospective in nature. A right or a liability which was created for the first time, cannot be given a retrospective effect. Furthermore, the intention of the State in giving a prospective effect to that rule is clear and explicit; the amendment in Rule 22A was also to be effective from 1.9.1982 itself. No relief can be granted to the appellant herein on the basis of the decision in Prabhati Devi (supra). The said decision did not lay down the correct law. Article 14 of the Constitution of India has a positive concept. Equality, it is trite, cannot be claimed in illegality. Even otherwise the writ petition as also the review petition have rightly not been entertained on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the appellant. 10. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that apart from the question of delay, even on merit, the appellant has no case. The Appeals are dismissed accordingly.” 17. Similarly, in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board vs. Jagjiwan Ram (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “The source and mode of engagement/recruitment of work charged employees, their pay and conditions of employment are altogether different from the persons appointed in the regular establishment against sanctioned posts after following the procedure prescribed under the relevant Act or rules and their duties and responsibilities are also substantially different than those of regular employees. The work charged employees can claim protection under the Industrial Disputes Act or the rights flowing from any particular statute but they cannot be treated at par with the employees of regular establishment. The work charged employees can claim protection under the Industrial Disputes Act or the rights flowing from any particular statute but they cannot be treated at par with the employees of regular establishment. They can neither claim regularization of service as of right nor they can claim pay scales and other financial benefits at par with regular employees. If the service of a work charged employee is regularized under any statute or a scheme framed by the employer, then he becomes member of regular establishment from the date of regularization. His service in the work charged establishment cannot be clubbed with service in a regular establishment unless a specific provision to that effect is made either in the relevant statute or the scheme of regularization. In other words, if the statute or scheme under which service of work charged employee is regularized does not provide for counting of past service, the work charged employee cannot claim benefit of such service for the purpose of fixation of seniority in the regular cadre, promotion to the higher posts, fixation of pay in the higher scales, grant of increments etc. Work charged employees constitute a distinct class and they cannot be equated with any other category or class of employees much less regular employees and further that the work charged employees are not entitled to the service benefits which are admissible to regular employees under the relevant rules or policy framed by the employer.” 18. These judgments relied upon by the respondents do not render the present petitioners disentitled for pension as this was not the issue involved in these judgments and the Circulars and Government decisions quoted above were not brought before the Apex Court in these cases for deciding other issues but not the issue relating to grant of pension and therefore, these cases are distinguishable. 19. In the aforesaid legal position, as far as the case of the petitioner Bhagawan Giri (in SBCWP No.194/2009) is concerned the same would stand on a slightly different footing. 19. In the aforesaid legal position, as far as the case of the petitioner Bhagawan Giri (in SBCWP No.194/2009) is concerned the same would stand on a slightly different footing. After the order Annex.1 dated 30.04.1981 absorbing the petitioner against the regular 43 vacancies notified, the petitioner would be entitled to the grant of pension as a regular Civil servant and after the said date 01.03.1979, he cannot be said to be any longer a work-charge employee and therefore, could not be covered by the Work-charge Employee Rules, 1964 or the Standing Orders applicable to Mahi Dam Project Employees who were subsequently given the benefit of pension only by amendment of notification 23.01.1990. He had completed more than 20 years of services even when he was retrenched on 01.04.1983 and therefore in view of Circulars dated 13.07.1994 and 04.09.2006, the said person would be entitled to the grant of pension subject to of course adjustment of Contributory Provident Fund payments already made to him. More so, when similarly situated person namely Mr.Prabhakaran Waghdare succeeded in getting same relief under the judgment of this Court dated 08.09.2005 quoted above and that judgment have been implemented by the respondents without demur or further appeal, the present petitioner therefore, could not stand on a different footing and notwithstanding some delay in filing the writ petition, which delay deserves to be condoned in view of the fact that right to receive pension is a continuous cause of action and the same can not be defeated merely because the litigant approached the Court with delay for claiming the same relief which could happen on account of variety of reasons like waiting for result of one litigation, lack of finances, ignorance of legal position, but access to justice cannot be denied on such grounds more so when one similarly situated person gets the same benefit under successful litigation. 20. As far as other persons or petitioners are concerned, the factual matrix in their cases may be different but undisputedly having rendered qualifying services of more than 10 years, there is no reason to hold them disentitled for consideration of their cases for the grant of pension in view of Circular dated 4.9.2006 quoted above which made applicable the Govt. As far as other persons or petitioners are concerned, the factual matrix in their cases may be different but undisputedly having rendered qualifying services of more than 10 years, there is no reason to hold them disentitled for consideration of their cases for the grant of pension in view of Circular dated 4.9.2006 quoted above which made applicable the Govt. of Rajasthan Decision No.5 under Rule 14 of the Pension Rules 1996 to all such work-charge employees covered under the 1964 Rules or for Standing Orders applicable to the concerned Department to be covered under the said Decision No.5 quoted in the circular dated 4.9.2006 and such other petitioners are also thus admittedly those persons who have rendered more than 10 years of qualifying service and therefore, amendment brought in the Standing Orders applicable to Mahi Dam Project giving the same relief as Rule 22A inserted in 1964 Rules intended to give such benefit of pension to work-charge employees governed by the Work Charge Empoyees Rules of 1964 also w.e.f. 23.1.1990, cannot be denied the same relief. The amendment of 23.1.1990 in Mahi Dam Project is not a substantive statute but it only clarifies to extend same benefits to Mahi Dam Project work charge employees which was already extended to other work charge employees governed by Work Charge Employees Rules, 1964. However, their cases would be required to be dispo-sed of separately considering their factual aspects by the competent authority of the respondent- State or the Mahi Dam Project, but as far as question of entitlement of their pension is concerned, the same is upheld by this Court. 21. Consequently, all these writ petitions are allowed and while holding the petitioners entitled to the grant of pensionary benefits, subject to adjust-ment of their Contributory Provident Fund payments already made to them, the respondent No.3, namely, the Chief Engineer of the Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Bansawara and the Chief Secretary of the Government of Rajasthan are directed to pass appropriate speaking separate order in the cases of pre-sent petitioners for computing their pensionary benefits and after adjustment of the Contributory Fund payments already made to them, they should release the balance of amount of arrears of pension to them and thereafter regular monthly pension to such employees or family pension to the widows as the case may be under the Pension Rules, 1996. Such exercise may be undertaken and completed within a period of six months from today. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.