ORDER : I.A.No.01/2023 :- Mr. Tak, the petitioner present in person submitted that having attained 80 years of age, he has already reached twilight of his life and hence, he would like to see that the issue flagged by him is brought to its logical end. While submitting that the controversy involved in the writ petition lies in a very narrow compass, he prayed that the matter be heard at an early date so that not only he, even other Members who have served the Rajasthan Public Service Commission are benefited, in case this Court holds in his favour. Considering the age of the petitioner and the controversy involved in the case, this Court deems it appropriate to give some priority to the matter. The application for early listing is, therefore, allowed. The matter is taken up for consideration today itself. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12910/2016:- 1. With the consent of all the parties, the matter has been heard finally. 2. The petitioner having served Jai Narayan Vyas University as a Professor was appointed as a Member of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘RPSC’). 3. The petitioner having joined as a Member on 10.11.1999 continued for six years till his engagement came to an end on 09.11.2005. 4. Service conditions, including pension payable to Chairman and Member are governed by Rajasthan Public Service Commission Regulations, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulations of 1974’). 5. It is to be noted that by way of notification dated 21.07.2015, the Regulations have been amended and retroactive affect has been given to the newly inserted/substituted provisions from 01.09.2006. 6. The petitioner feels aggrieved of the fact that in spite of the amendment in the Regulations of 1974, the State is paying him a paltry amount of Rs.500/-per month as pension, whereas as per amended regulations, he is entitled for Rs.15,000/-per annum for each year of service. 7. The petitioner has tried to persuade the respondents and even sent a notice for demand of justice, but no heed has been paid to his request. 8. The petitioner argued that the amendments which have been brought in the Regulations apply with full force to his case and therefore, he is entitled for pension of Rs. 7. The petitioner has tried to persuade the respondents and even sent a notice for demand of justice, but no heed has been paid to his request. 8. The petitioner argued that the amendments which have been brought in the Regulations apply with full force to his case and therefore, he is entitled for pension of Rs. 90,000/-per annum calculated at the rate of Rs.15,000/-for each year out of six years he has remained in the Commission, as against the meagre sum of Rs.6,000/- per annum which he is currently getting. 9. Mr. Gaur, learned Additional Advocate General argued that the Regulations of 1974 have been amended with effect from 01.09.2006 and since petitioner’s tenure as Member of the Commission was over on 09.11.2005, i.e. prior to the coming into force of the amendment (on 21.07.2015), he is not entitled for the increased pension. According to him, the petitioner is rightly getting pension at the rate of Rs. 6,000/-per annum (Rs.500/-per month) according to the Regulations which existed when he retired. 10. He read Clause No.1(2) of the notification, and highlighted that amended provisions are applicable only with effect from 01.09.2006 to buttress his argument that no benefit can be claimed by the petitioner on the basis of the amendment which has been brought in clause 9 of the Regulations of 1974. 11. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Commission also opposed petitioner’s prayer. 12. Heard. 13. Provisions relevant for the present purposes are clause 1, 2 and 9 of the Regulations of 1974 as enacted on 11.05.1974 (or unamended clauses) which read thus:- “(1) Short title, commencement and application - (1) The Regulations may be called(sic) the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Conditions Of Service) Regulations, 1974. (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in Official Gazette (published on 6-6-74). (9) Pension payable to Members who were not in the Service of the Central or a State Government, etc. (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in Official Gazette (published on 6-6-74). (9) Pension payable to Members who were not in the Service of the Central or a State Government, etc. (1) Subject to the provisions of these regulations, a Member, who on the date of his appointment, was not in the service of the Central or a State Government, a local body or any other body wholly or substantially owned or controlled by Government, shall on his ceasing to hold office as Member, be paid a pension: Provided that no such pension shall be payable to a Member- (a) unless he has completed not less than three years of service as Member; or (b) if he has been removed from office as Member; (2) Pension under these regulations shall be payable to a Member for life; Provided that no such pension shall be payable during any period for which such member may, after his retirement hold office as Member of the Union Public Service Commission or Member of a Public Service Commission of another State. (3) Pension under this regulation shall be paid at the following rates, namely:- (i) In the case of the Chairman, Rupees * Six hundred fifty per month (ii) In the case of a Member, Rupees ** Five hundred per month if he has completed six years of service.” 14. The regulations were amended by way of notification dated 21.07.2015 and given retrospective effect by virtue of clause 1(2). Relevant extract of the Amendment Regulations, 2015 read thus:- “(1) Short title and commencement – (1) These Regulations may be called the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Regulations, 2015. (2) They shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 01.09.2006. (2) Deletion of Regulation 8 – The existing Regulation 8 of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the said Regulations, shall be deleted. (5) Substitution of Regulation 9The existing Regulation 9 of the said Regulations shall be substituted by the following, namely:- (9) Pension payable to members – Pension under these regulation shall be paid at the following rates, namely:- (i) in the case of the Chairman, Rupees Sixteen thousand per annum for each completed year of service in the Commission. (5) Substitution of Regulation 9The existing Regulation 9 of the said Regulations shall be substituted by the following, namely:- (9) Pension payable to members – Pension under these regulation shall be paid at the following rates, namely:- (i) in the case of the Chairman, Rupees Sixteen thousand per annum for each completed year of service in the Commission. (ii) in the case of a Member, Rupees Fifteen thousand per annum for each completed year of service in the Commission: Provided that no such pension shall be payable to Chairman/Member of the Commission,- (a) unless he has completed minimum three years of service as Chairman/Member; or (b) if he has been removed from office as Chairman/Member. … …… … …… Provided also that no arrear shall be payable for the period from 01.09.2006 to 31.12.2006. Cash payment shall be payable from 01.01.2007.” 15. According to this Court, the stand of the respondent – State that since the petitioner’s tenure as Member of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission had ended on 09.11.2005, the amendments brought into force with effect from 01.09.2006, are not applicable to him, is absolutely untenable. The reasons are set out here infra. 16. It is true that para No. 1(2) of the notification dated 21.07.2015 renders the amendments retroactive (from 01.09.2006), but one cannot lose sight of the fact that clause 9 of the Regulations dealing with pension payable to Members and Chairman of the Commission has been substituted and an entirely new mechanism for calculation of pension has been provided. The same is clear from a simple reading of para 5 of Amendment Regulation, 2015 which reads as: “(5) Substitution of Regulation 9-The existing Regulation 9 of the said Regulations shall be substituted by the following, namely:-” 17. The effect of para 5 of the Notification is that clause 9 of the Regulations of 1974 has been deleted with effect from 01.09.2006 and new provisions given thereunder have been inserted. Hence, if rights of a Member/Chairman as on 01.09.2006 are to be determined, they are required to be reckoned as per the provision existing in the Regulations and not in terms of the earlier provisions which have ceased to exist. 18. As a consequence of the amendment introduced by notification dated 21.07.2015, the earlier provisions of pension which provided for Rs.500/-per month stand deleted. Hence, the State cannot continue paying Rs.500/-per month or Rs.6,000/- per annum. 18. As a consequence of the amendment introduced by notification dated 21.07.2015, the earlier provisions of pension which provided for Rs.500/-per month stand deleted. Hence, the State cannot continue paying Rs.500/-per month or Rs.6,000/- per annum. If the notification dated 21.07.2015 is given a harmonious construction and purposive interpretation, the net result would be that the amendments which have been brought into effect by notification dated 21.07.2015 shall be applicable with effect from 01.09.2006. 19. The fact that a Member or the Chairman has retired or has completed his tenure before 01.09.2006 is hardly of any relevance. 20. Aforesaid view of this Court is based on close and conjoint reading of the Regulations of 1974 after giving effect to the Amendment Regulations of 2015 or the Provision which are prevailing after 21.07.2015. 21. When it comes to the entitlement of the person having served as a Member of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, the State’s view in a given case may be tenable that the person having worked as Member/Chairman of the Commission prior to date of promulgation of Regulations of 1974 shall be entitled for pension as per the date given in the Regulations of 1974. But since the petitioner’s eligibility/entitlement to get the pension has already been acknowledged and accepted, his rights cannot be curtailed by reading Clause (2) of para No.1 of the notification dated 21.07.2015 in the manner attempted to. 22. Aforesaid view of this Court is fortified by judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of GottumukkalaVenkata Krishamraju Vs. Union Of India & Ors., reported in (2019) 17 SCC 590. The Court while dealing with the meaning of word “substitution” held thus:- “18. Ordinarily wherever the word “substitute” or “substitution” is used by the legislature, it has the effect of deleting the old provision and make the new provision operative. The process of substitution consists of two steps : first, the old rule is made to cease to exist and, next, the new rule is brought into existence in its place. Ordinarily wherever the word “substitute” or “substitution” is used by the legislature, it has the effect of deleting the old provision and make the new provision operative. The process of substitution consists of two steps : first, the old rule is made to cease to exist and, next, the new rule is brought into existence in its place. The rule is that when a subsequent Act amends an earlier one in such a way as to incorporate itself, or a part of itself, into the earlier, then the earlier Act must thereafter be read and construed as if the altered words had been written into the earlier Act with pen and ink and the old words scored out so that thereafter there is no need to refer to the amending Act at all. No doubt, in certain situations, the Court having regard to the purport and object sought to be achieved by the legislature may construe the word “substitution” as an “amendment” having a prospective effect. Therefore, we do not think that it is a universal rule that the word “substitution” necessarily or always connotes two several steps, that is to say, one of repeal and another of a fresh enactment even if it implies two steps. However, the aforesaid general meaning is to be given effect to, unless it is found that the legislature intended otherwise. Insofar as present case is concerned, as discussed hereinafter, the legislative intent was also to give effect to the amended provisions even in respect of those incumbents who were in service as on 1-9-2016. 19. The effect, thus, would be to replace Section 6 as amended with the intention as if this is the only provision which exist from the date of introduction and the earlier provision was not there at all. The effect of this would be that all those incumbents who are holding the post of Presiding Officer on 1-9-2016 would be governed by this provision.” 23. The provision relating to pension which presently exists in the eye of law is the one, that has been substituted with effect from 01.09.2006. Earlier provisions have neither been saved nor has any stipulation been made about the persons whose tenure has ended before 01.09.2006. The provision relating to pension which presently exists in the eye of law is the one, that has been substituted with effect from 01.09.2006. Earlier provisions have neither been saved nor has any stipulation been made about the persons whose tenure has ended before 01.09.2006. In absence of any provision restricting the applicability of amendment of 2015 to the persons retiring after 21.07.2015 (or 01.09.2006) it cannot be said that the same would not apply to the members who had served prior to 01.09.2006. 24. Neither the existing nor did the provisions existing prior to the amendment of 2015 make the pension dependent upon the fortuitous event of date of retirement. It is settled proposition of law that the provisions are required to be read as they exist. The extant provision relating to pension payable to the Member of the Commission makes no reference of the date of retirement. Hence, the State’s stand of infusing the ‘date of retirement’ in the provision is absolutely illegal. 25. The argument of Mr. Gaur that as the petitioner had retired prior to coming into force of the Amendment Regulations, 2015, the same are not applicable to his case, has no substance. If that be so, a Member demeting office on 30.06.2006 will get pension of Rs. 6,000/-per annum whereas another member retiring just a day after would get Rs.90,000/-per annum. Such an interpretation would lead to anomoly and generate iniquitous results for two similarly situated members. The State’s stand that petitioner having worked as a Member of the Commission till 09.11.2005 is not entitled for enhanced/revised pension as per prevailing Clause 9 of the Regulations of 1974 cannot be countenanced. 26. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. 27. It is hereby held and declared that petitioner, a Member who had served the Commission and is getting pension in terms of the Regulations of 1974 shall be entitled for revised pension as per the existing Regulation No.9 post issuance of notification dated 21.07.2015. Such revision shall be effective from 01.09.2006 the date from which the amended Regulations, 2015 have been given effect to. The cash payment shall, however, be payable from 01.01.2007 as per the last proviso. 28. The respondents are directed to pay pension and the arrears of pension to the petitioner as per prevailing provision of Regulation No.9 of the Regulations of 1974. 29. The cash payment shall, however, be payable from 01.01.2007 as per the last proviso. 28. The respondents are directed to pay pension and the arrears of pension to the petitioner as per prevailing provision of Regulation No.9 of the Regulations of 1974. 29. In other words, the respondents shall pay pension of Rs. 90,000/- per annum to the petitioner. 30. The arrears of pension payable to the petitioner be calculated within a period of two months from today under intimation to the petitioner. The arrears shall be paid to the petitioner on or before 30.06.2023. 31. The petitioner shall be free to take up his remedies, if he feels dissatisfied with the calculation made by the State. 32. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.