ORDER : Arun Monga, J. 1. The petitioner, a former Judicial Officer of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service, was compulsorily retired from the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge on 13.07.2004, after six years of service, seeks issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to grant him pension with effect from the date of his retirement along with interest. He further seeks directions to count his ten years’ practice as an Advocate prior to joining judicial service towards qualifying service, so that his total service of 10 years (advocacy) + 6 years (judicial service) may be treated as continuous qualifying service for pension. 2. The petitioner also seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 06.10.2017 (Annexure-8) as well as the communication dated 05.03.2024 (Annexure-7C), , whereby his claim for pension was rejected. 3. In support of his claim, the petitioner relies upon the order dated 13.07.2023 (Annexure-7A) issued by Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan read with Rule 30 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. More of it later, in the succeeding part of this order. 4. Facts first. Briefly stated, shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate in the year 1976. Pursuant to a selection process for direct recruitment to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service, he applied and was selected along with ten other candidates. On the recommendation of the Rajasthan High Court, he was appointed as Additional District Judge on probation for two years vide an order dated 20.04.1998. 4.1. On successful completion of probation, the petitioner was confirmed on the post with effect from 02.08.2000. In view of his satisfactory performance, the petitioner was assigned the cadre of District & Sessions Judge vide an order dated 30.08.2002 and posted as Special Judge, Sessions Court, ACD Cases, Kota. 4.2. During the said posting, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide an order dated 31.05.2003 on the basis of a complaint submitted by one Shri Inder Singh Mandloi. 4.3. A preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Registrar (Vigilance), which culminated in initiation of departmental proceedings. A memorandum dated 26.06.2003 was issued alleging that while functioning as Special Judge, Kota, the petitioner had acquitted an accused in Sessions Case No. 37/2001 (State v. Anandi Lal Mathur) with an oblique motive after allegedly accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 15 lakhs. 4.3. A preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Registrar (Vigilance), which culminated in initiation of departmental proceedings. A memorandum dated 26.06.2003 was issued alleging that while functioning as Special Judge, Kota, the petitioner had acquitted an accused in Sessions Case No. 37/2001 (State v. Anandi Lal Mathur) with an oblique motive after allegedly accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 15 lakhs. The petitioner denied the allegations in his reply dated 21.08.2003, asserting that the judgment was passed on appreciation of evidence and law. 4.4. While the first inquiry was pending, a second memorandum dated 10.03.2004 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 was issued, alleging irregular grant of bail in another criminal case. However, both departmental proceedings were later dropped by the Secretary, Law and Legal Affairs Department, Government of Rajasthan. Consequently, vide an order dated 12.07.2004, the petitioner’s suspension was revoked and he was directed to await posting orders at Kota. 4.5. However, almost simultaneously (a day later), vide an order dated 13.07.2004 the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service. He received a letter dated 14.07.2004 along with a bank draft of three months’ salary in lieu of notice, informing him of his compulsory retirement. 4.6.. Aggrieved by the compulsory retirement, the petitioner filed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1150/2006, which was dismissed on 06.01.2011. The Special Leave Petition against the said order was also dismissed, rendering the order of compulsory retirement final. Thus, the petitioner served in the Higher Judicial Service from 20.04.1998 till his compulsory retirement on 13.07.2004 i.e. little more than 6 years. 4.7. Subsequently, Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 was amended vide notification dated 30.03.2015 (effective from 19.01.2010), providing that a District Judge shall be entitled to reckon as service qualifying for superannuation pension and other retiral benefits the actual period of practice put in by him at the Bar, not exceeding seven years. On the basis of the said amendment, the petitioner submitted representations seeking inclusion of his advocacy period for pension, which too were rejected. 4.8. Pursuant to this Court’s granting fresh liberty in an earlier DB writ petition preferred by the petitioner, he again submitted a representation dated 25.07.2017, relying upon Rule 30 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996(hereinafter also referred to as 1996 Rules), which for ready reference is being reproduced hereunder:- "30. 4.8. Pursuant to this Court’s granting fresh liberty in an earlier DB writ petition preferred by the petitioner, he again submitted a representation dated 25.07.2017, relying upon Rule 30 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996(hereinafter also referred to as 1996 Rules), which for ready reference is being reproduced hereunder:- "30. Superannuation pension - A superannuation pension shall be granted to a Government servant who is retired on his attaining the age of compulsory retirement under Rule (56) of RAJASTHAN SERVICE RULES ." 4.9. In the meanwhile, during pendency of the claim of the petitioner, the Finance Department issued an order dated 13.07.2023, Clause 2(a)(iv) whereof provides that benefit of practice at the Bar (up to ten years) shall be given to direct recruits of Higher Judicial Service who retired prior to 01.01.2016.The clause-2(a)(iv) of above order reads as under: " The benefits of number of years of practice at bar subject to maximum of weightage of ten years will be given to direct recruits of Higher Judicial Services, who retired prior to 01.01.2016.” 4.10. Relying upon the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted yet another representation. However, the Finance Department opined that the petitioner’s compulsory retirement was by way of penalty and, therefore, he was not entitled to the benefit. Consequently, the Law and Legal Affairs Department rejected the petitioner’s representation/claim vide communication dated 05.03.2024. Qua the notification dated 30.03.2015, it was stated that petitioner's case is not covered by it and the issues raised by petitioner are therefore, devoid of any merit. 4.11. Hence, the instant writ petition seeking the indulgence of this Court for grant of pension, inter alia, asserting that the rejection of claim is not sustainable in law in the light of Rule 30 [of the 1996 Rules] read with the subsequent order/notification dated 13.07.2023. 5. Two replies have been filed to counter the writ petition. One common reply on behalf of all respondents and a separate reply on behalf of respondent No. 2.In the common reply, defense taken, inter alia, is that the entire writ petition is founded upon the Notification dated 30.03.2015, which is effective from 19.01.2010, and therefore has no application to the petitioner, who was compulsorily retired in the year 2004. One common reply on behalf of all respondents and a separate reply on behalf of respondent No. 2.In the common reply, defense taken, inter alia, is that the entire writ petition is founded upon the Notification dated 30.03.2015, which is effective from 19.01.2010, and therefore has no application to the petitioner, who was compulsorily retired in the year 2004. 5.1 The respondents further plead that the amendment in Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, vide Notification dated 30.03.2015 applies only to personnel who retire on attaining the age of 60 years under Rule 56 of the RAJASTHAN SERVICE RULES , 1951 and are entitled to superannuation pension. The petitioner, however, was compulsorily retired under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. It is pointed out that by judgment dated 14.11.2014 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12515/2013, this Court held that the petitioner had not completed the minimum qualifying service on the date of his compulsory retirement and was therefore not eligible for pension under Rule 54(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. As a result, the petitioner’s ineligibility for pension automatically disentitles him from claiming any ancillary or retiral benefits attached to pension. On this ground alone, it is submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5.3 In the second reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, it is reiterated that the petitioner’s last representation dated 25.07.2017 was rightly rejected by the Department of Law and Legal Affairs vide impugned letter/order dated 06.10.2017. The said letter 06.10.2017 reads as under:- “S.No. 26(53)Justice/2016 Jaipur, dated 06-10-2017 To, The Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Subject: Regarding the inclusion of the 7-years advocacy experience period of Shri S.N. Derashri, Retd. RHJS, into his pensionable service. Reference: Your Letter No. Estt. B 2 (viii) / S.N. Derashri / Pension / 2004/245 dated 03.08.2017. Sir, In continuation of your referenced letter concerning the subject mentioned above, the file was sent to the Department of Personnel, which has noted the following: “Shri S.N. Derashri was appointed to the post of District Judge on 20.04.98 and was confirmed on 02.08.2000. Subsequently, he was granted compulsory retirement vide Order dated 13.07.2004. It is therefore evident that his period of service in the said post was from 20.04.98 to 13.07.04. Subsequently, he was granted compulsory retirement vide Order dated 13.07.2004. It is therefore evident that his period of service in the said post was from 20.04.98 to 13.07.04. Consequently, the points raised in the memorandum submitted by him are not acceptable as his case is not covered under the Notification dated 30.03.15 (effective from 19.01.10) issued by the Department of Personnel. This is forwarded for your information." 5.4.An additional reply has been filed to the amended writ petition on behalf of respondent No. 1. Similar stand has been taken therein i.e. the amendment relied upon is effective only from 19.01.2010 and does not cover those who retired prior thereto.With regard to the Finance Department order/notification dated 13.07.2023, it is pleaded that the said order pertains solely to revision of pension and family pension and applies only to judicial officers who were already receiving pension as on 01.01.2016. Under the said order, the benefit of counting years of practice at the Bar, subject to a maximum weightage of ten years, has been granted only for the purpose of revising pension of existing pensioners. The said order does not apply to judicial officers who were compulsorily retired by way of penalty and were not receiving pension. The order dated 13.07.2023 thus does not confer pension eligibility on any person and is limited strictly to revision of pension for those already entitled thereto. 6. In light of the aforesaid respective stands taken in the pleadings we have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues thatthe impugned order dated 06.10.2017 is untenable in law. He contends that the rejection of claim is illegal, as compulsory retirement was not punitive. The finance department order dated 13.07.2023 does not distinguish between compulsory retirement simpliciter and compulsory retirement by way of punishment. 7.1. He would also submit that, at the very least, from the date of issuance of the Notification dated 30.03.2015, made effective from 19.01.2010, the petitioner ought to have been granted the benefit of counting his period of legal practice towards qualifying service. Consequently, the petitioner was entitled to retiral benefits, including superannuation pension, which have been wrongly denied. 7.2. 7.1. He would also submit that, at the very least, from the date of issuance of the Notification dated 30.03.2015, made effective from 19.01.2010, the petitioner ought to have been granted the benefit of counting his period of legal practice towards qualifying service. Consequently, the petitioner was entitled to retiral benefits, including superannuation pension, which have been wrongly denied. 7.2. It is also submitted that once the Notification dated 30.03.2015 expressly provides that a period of seven years of practice as an Advocate shall be reckoned for the purpose of qualifying service for superannuation pension, there is no justification, whatsoever, for denying the said benefit to the petitioner. The petitioner had practiced as an Advocate from the year 1976, after his enrolment, until his selection to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (R.H.J.S.) in the year 1998, and is therefore squarely covered by the Notification. 7.3. That there is no question of the Notification dated 30.03.2015 being either prospective or retrospective in nature, as it merely confers an additional benefit by allowing seven years of practice at the Bar to be added to the qualifying service of a District Judge. From the date such additional benefit has been made available, the petitioner is equally entitled to its application. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to have seven years of his practice period reckoned for the purpose of qualifying service for superannuation pension. 7.4. It is further submitted that while rejecting the petitioner’s representation, the respondents failed to consider the true import and effect of Rule 30 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules. Rule 30 mandates that a Government servant who retires upon attaining the age of compulsory retirement is entitled to superannuation pension. Thus, by virtue of the said Rule, a Government servant cannot be denied superannuation pension on the ground of alleged non-completion of qualifying service. 7.5 Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently summed up urging that the impugned order passed on 05.03.2024 rejecting the petitioner’s representation and communicated vide forwarding letter dated 27.03.2024, is manifestly erroneous and unsustainable. Firstly, the petitioner was not compulsorily retired by way of punishment. The order dated 06.01.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court clearly establishes that the order of retirement was not a camouflage for an order of punishment. Firstly, the petitioner was not compulsorily retired by way of punishment. The order dated 06.01.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court clearly establishes that the order of retirement was not a camouflage for an order of punishment. Secondly, the order dated 13.07.2023 issued by the Finance Department (Rules Division) does not draw any distinction for grant of the benefit of counting years of practice at the Bar based on whether the compulsory retirement was retirement simpliciter or by way of punishment. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 05.03.2024 is per se illegal and liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra, the petition is being opposed by learned State counsel and learned counsel for the High Court, essentially premised on stand taken in the respective replies. 9. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments and after going through the record, we shall now proceed to give our opinion by recording reasons thereof. 10. At the very threshold, we are constrained to observe that the instant writ petition appears to be misconceived as the relief sought by the petitioner is hit by principle of res-judicata. The claim herein was subject matter of an earlier writ petition bearing No.12515 of 2013 preferred by the petitioner seeking almost the same relief which after due consideration was declined by passing a reasoned order dated 14.11.2014. The said Division Bench order was also assailed by the petitioner unsuccessfully before the Supreme Court. 11. The earlier Division Bench order dated 14.11.2014 reads as under. “1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner served as an Officer in the District Judge Cadre in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service. He was compulsorily retired on 13.7.2004 by the State Government on the recommendation of the High Court. By the date of his compulsory retirement, he had not rendered the qualifying service for eligibility for pension under Rule 54(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Service Pension Rules, 1996 (for short, “the Rules of 1996”). The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the order of compulsory retirement in a writ petition before this court. A Special Leave Petition against the order was dismissed by the Apex Court. 3. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the order of compulsory retirement in a writ petition before this court. A Special Leave Petition against the order was dismissed by the Apex Court. 3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “1.The respondents may kindly be directed to release the petitioner’s pension on and from the date he has been compulsorily retired i.e. on 13.7.2014 alongwith interest at prevailing market rate. 2. That the respondents may kindly be directed to provide the petitioner medical reimbursement and all ancillary retiral benefits. 3. That apart from aforesaid, the respondents may kindly be directed to make regular payment of additional medical allowance and the domestic help allowance as per directions and orders/circulars to the petitioner with arrears of the same from 13.7.2014 alongwith interest at prevailing market rate.” 4. It is admitted that the petitioner had not rendered the minimum qualifying service on the date of his compulsory retirement, and thus in view of Rule 54(1) of the Rules of 1996, he is not entitled to pension. 5. In para 13 of the reply, given by the State Government, it is admitted that as a compulsorily retired judicial officer, even if the petitioner is not eligible for receiving the pension under Rule 54(1) of the Rules, he is entitled to the Medical Allowance of Rs.100/- per month and Domestic Help Allowance of Rs.1500/-. Per month. Para 13 of the reply is quoted below: “13. That in reply to the contents to para no.13 of the writ petition, it is submitted that as far as medical allowance and domestic help allowance is concerned, the answering respondent got the medical examination of the petitioner done and it was found that the petitioner is entitled for the medical and domestic help allowance. That the answering department vide communication dated 8.8.2007 and 13.9.2007 requested the Registrar General Rajasthan High Court for providing the details of the petitioner’s residence (Tehsil and District) so that the District Treasury Officer and Bank may be identified, but till date, no such information was received by the department. That as soon as the same will be received from the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court then only any action can be taken by the answering department which will be required.” 6. Mr. That as soon as the same will be received from the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court then only any action can be taken by the answering department which will be required.” 6. Mr. P.S.Bhati, Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State has admitted that petitioner is entitled to Medical Allowance and Domestic Help Allowance, despite the fact that he has not rendered eligible service for pension under the Rules. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that petitioner would be granted the Medical Allowance of Rs.100/- and Domestic Help Allowance of Rs.1500/- per month with effect from 13.7.2004, when he was compulsorily retired from service. The arrears will be paid within three months and thereafter, the amount under two different heads as aforesaid will be paid regularly on monthly basis to the petitioner. The Registrar General will submit the entire details required for issuing necessary orders for disbursement of Medical Allowance and the Domestic Help Allowance to the State Government. The Stay Petition too, stands disposed-of.” 11. It would be seen that the petitioner’s claim herein for grant of pension was also the subject matter of the earlier writ petition, which was considered but not granted and stood impliedly declined by the Division Bench. It thus follows that the same relief sought herein by the petitioner is hit by principle of res-judicata. 12. Be that as it may, we have also given our thought on the merits of the arguments addressed qua the subsequent notifications/orders which have been relied upon by the petitioner. It seems that in order to reopen the lis under the garb of a subsequent notification dated 30.03.2015 read with finance department order dated 13.07.2023, the petitioner has disguised the second round of litigation ostensibly on the fresh cause of action based there upon. First let us see the notification dated 30.03.2015, which reads as under :- “G.S.R. 69. In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 233 and 234 read with proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor of Rajasthan in consultation with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, hereby makes the following amendment in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, namely:- 1. Short title and commencement.- (1) These rules may be called the Rajasthan Judicial Service (Amendment) Rules, 2015. (2) They shall be deemed to have come into force w.e.f. 19-01-2010. 2. Amendment in Rule 53 :- The following new proviso shall be inserted, after existing Rule 53 :- “Provided that an Advocate appointed as a Civil Judge or a District Judge, shall be entitled to reckon as service qualifying for superannuation pension and other retiral benefits., the actual period of practice put in by him at the Bar, not exceeding three years or seven years respectively.” Perusal of the above depicts that for the purpose of calculating the qualifying service maximum, benefit as an advocate that can be given to a District Judge cannot exceed seven years regardless of the actual length of practice. However, this notification states that it shall be deemed to have come into force w.e.f. 19.01.2010. The petitioner stood retired in 2004, long before the coming into effect of the said notification. The same is, therefore, not applicable to his case. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be misreading the aforesaid notification by relying on Finance Departmentorder dated 13.07.2023. Being apposite, for ready reference the same is also reproduced herein below :- “In supersession of Finance Department Order no. F.12(4)FD/Rules/2010 dated 27.08.2010 as amended from time to time, the Governor is pleased to order that :- 1. The retirement benefit to the judicial officers, who retire / retired on or after 01.01.2016 shall be allowed as under (a) The pension and family pension shall be @ 50% and 30% respectively of the last pay drawn at the time of retirement. (b) Age of Superannuation: The age of Superannuation of Judicial Officers shall be 60 years as at present. (c) Qualifying service for earning full pension shall be 20 years. (d) Last pay drawn shall continue to be taken as emoluments for purpose of calculation of pension. (e) Commutation of pension shall be 50% of the pension with restoration after 15 years. (f) The payment of DCRG and retirement Gratuity is revised to Rs.20 lacs w.e.f. 01.01.2016 as per Rule 50(1)(a) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for this purpose Finance Department has already given concurrence vide ID No. 592300031 dated 08.03.2023). The maximum limit for retirement gratuity/death gratuity shall be increased by 25% whenever DA rises by 50%. (f) The payment of DCRG and retirement Gratuity is revised to Rs.20 lacs w.e.f. 01.01.2016 as per Rule 50(1)(a) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for this purpose Finance Department has already given concurrence vide ID No. 592300031 dated 08.03.2023). The maximum limit for retirement gratuity/death gratuity shall be increased by 25% whenever DA rises by 50%. (g) Family Pension shall be paid to eligible family member(s) as per Rule 54 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The aforesaid provisions will come into force w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and will be applicable to judicial officers who have retired or ceased to be in service due to death or retirement on or after 01.01.2016. 2. The pension / family pension of the judicial officers, who retired / died prior to 01.01.2016 shall be revised as under: (a) The revised pension / family pension of the judicial officers who have retired or died while in service prior to 01.01.2016 shall be as under: (i) The existing pension / family pension shall be revised by the multiplier factor of 2.81 or Retired / died Judicial Officers to be placed notionally at the corresponding stage of the fitment table (indicated in item (v)) in new proposed pay on the basis of last pay drawn at the time of retirement and the revised pension and family pension shall be @ 50% and 30% respectively of the new proposed pay as per fitment table, whichever is higher. (ii) The quantum of family persion shall be worked out in the sarne manner as quantum of pension is worked out. (iii) Income limit, in relation to dependent family members (other than the spouse) for being eligible to get family pension shall be not less than Rs.30,000/- per month (rupees thirty thousand per month). (iv) The benefits of number of years of practice at bar subject to maximum of weightage of ten years will be given to direct recruits of Higher Judicial Services, who retired prior to 01.01.2016 . ” 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Clause 2(a)(iv) of above order and contends that since the petitioner retired prior to 01.01.2016, he is entitled to the maximum weightage of ten years for the purpose of counting qualifying service for pension. ” 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Clause 2(a)(iv) of above order and contends that since the petitioner retired prior to 01.01.2016, he is entitled to the maximum weightage of ten years for the purpose of counting qualifying service for pension. It is argued that, upon adding ten years of practice to his six years of service as a judicial officer, the petitioner would have a total qualifying service of sixteen years. On this basis, it is urged that the petitioner becomes eligible for pension and that the denial thereof by the respondents is founded on an erroneous interpretation of the applicable rules. 15. In fact, shoe is on the other foot and the position is quite to the reverse, as it is the petitioner who has misread and misconstrued the order dated 13.07.2023. The aforesaid order dated 13.07.2023 must necessarily be read in conjunction with and not in derogation of Rule 54(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 under which the completion of the minimum qualifying service of 10 years is necessary to be eligible for pension. Admittedly, the petitioner’s actual period of service before retirement was from 20.04.1998 to 12.07.2004 which fell short of the prescribed minimum qualifying service of 10 years necessary for eligibility of pension. 16. A careful reading of the notification/order dated13.07.2023, ibid, reveals a rather clear structural demarcation and the same does not help the petitioner, in any manner, what so ever. Clause 1 thereof applies to Judicial Officers who retired on or after 01.01.2016 and lays down the parameters for fixation of pension, family pension, qualifying service, age of superannuation and allied benefits. Clause 2, on the other hand, is confined to Judicial Officers who retired or died prior to 01.01.2016 and were already drawing or entitled to pension or family pension. The language employed in Clause 2 repeatedly refers to “existing pension”, “revised pension”, “multiplier factor” and “notional pay fixation”, thereby leaving no manner of doubt that the clause operates only upon pensions that had already accrued and were in payment. 16.1. Moving on, Clause 2(a)(iv), which provides for grant of weightage for years of practice at the Bar up to a maximum of ten years to direct recruits of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service who retired prior to 01.01.2016, cannot be read in isolation. 16.1. Moving on, Clause 2(a)(iv), which provides for grant of weightage for years of practice at the Bar up to a maximum of ten years to direct recruits of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service who retired prior to 01.01.2016, cannot be read in isolation. It is an integral part of Clause 2 and derives its field of operation solely from the opening words of that clause. The provision is, therefore, in the nature of a benefit-enhancing measure intended to revise the quantum of pension payable to an existing class of pensioners. It does not purport to confer or create eligibility for pension, waive the requirement of minimum qualifying service or nullify Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, or create a new class of pension beneficiaries. 16.2. Significantly, Clause 2 of the notification dated 13.07.2023 begins with the stipulation that the pension or family pension of Judicial Officers who retired or died prior to 01.01.2016 “shall be revised”. The provision thus presupposes the existence of pensionable status. In settled principles of statutory interpretation, a revising or computation provision cannot be construed as creating or conferring a new substantive right which did not previously exist. Eligibility for pension must necessarily precede its revision or recalculation. 16.3. Clause 2(a)(iv) must also be construed harmoniously with the statutory scheme and earlier amendments. The interpretation advanced by the petitioner, namely that Clause 2(a) (iv) deems all RHJS officers who retired prior to 01.01.2016 to be pension-eligible by counting up to ten years of practice, is not borne out from the text of the notification. The notification does not use the expression “shall be entitled to pension”, nor does it nullify Rule 54 of the Pension Rules, 1996. It operates strictly in the realm of revision of pension and family pension already sanctioned or earned and does not retrospectively create pension rights. Pension revision notifications are arithmetic and computational in character and do not determine or adjudicate eligibility. Eligibility is a threshold condition and must be satisfied under the applicable statutory rules before any question of computation or revision arises. Executive instructions cannot be employed to resurrect or create pension entitlements where none existed under the law. 16.4. Applying these principles to the present case, it is evident that the petitioner was rightly held ineligible for and was never a pensioner. Executive instructions cannot be employed to resurrect or create pension entitlements where none existed under the law. 16.4. Applying these principles to the present case, it is evident that the petitioner was rightly held ineligible for and was never a pensioner. In the absence of any accrued or existing pensionary right, clause 2 of the notification dated 13.07.2023, including Clause 2(a)(iv), providing for the revision of pension has no application to the petitioner. The reliance placed on the said notification is, therefore, misconceived and legally unsustainable. 17. At this stage, reference may also be had to Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 which reads as under:- “53. Leave, allowances and pension etc.- Except as otherwise provided in these Rules and until separate rules are framed by the Government in this regard, the allowances, pension, leave, conduct and other conditions of service of the members of the Service shall be regulated by the following Rules, as amended from time to time, namely:- 1. The RAJASTHAN SERVICE RULES , 1951, as amended from time to time; 2. The Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1958, as amended from time to time; 3. The Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971, as amended from time to time; 4. The Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, as amended from time to time; 5. The Rajasthan Travelling Allowances Rules, 1971, as amended from time to time; and 6. Any other Rules governing general conditions of service, made by the Governor in Exercise of powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and for the time being in force and applicable to the members of the State Services. Provided that an Advocate appointed as a Civil Judge or a District Judge, shall be entitles to reckon as service qualifying for superannuation pension & other retrial benefits, the actual period of practice put in by him at the Bar, not exceeding three years or seven years respectively.” 18. Order/notification dated 13.07.2023, strenuously relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not nullify the aforesaid statutory provisions of Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, whereby Rule 54(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 is applicable, and under which thecompletion of minimum qualifying service of 10 years has been prescribed. Order/notification dated 13.07.2023, strenuously relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not nullify the aforesaid statutory provisions of Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, whereby Rule 54(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 is applicable, and under which thecompletion of minimum qualifying service of 10 years has been prescribed. The attempt to use the 2023 order as a gateway provision to pension eligibility is thus legally unsustainable. 19. The notification dated 13.07.2023 is an executive instruction issued by the Finance Department (Rules Division) with the limited object of revising and rationalizing the pension and family pension payable to Judicial Officers so as to align the same with revised pay structures introduced with effect from 01.01.2016. Para 2 thereof, relied upon by the petitioner, pre-supposes and proceeds on the premise that the concerned retirees were drawing or had earned pension prior to 01.01.2016. It’s operation, therefore, is necessarily subject and supplementary to the statutory framework governing eligibility of pension. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner is thus adopting erroneous approach in his interpretation of the Finance Department order dated 13.07.2023. As already noted, clause 2(a)(iv) deals with revision and computation of pension, not creation of pension entitlement. The order presupposes that the officer is already a pensioner or otherwise eligible for pension. 21. In any case, dehors the discussion on merits of the two notifications, as recorded here in above, at the cost of repetition, the issue of the petitioner’s pension eligibility has already been conclusively decided and is barred by principles of res judicata. His non-eligibility for pension has already been conclusively adjudicated by a Division Bench in D.B. CWP No. 12515/2013, affirmed up to the Supreme Court. It is squarely held therein that he did not complete the minimum qualifying service under Rule 54(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996.Once this finding attained finality, the petitioner could not reopen pension eligibility unless a subsequent notification expressly conferred pension eligibility retrospectively i.e. on or before the date of his compulsory retirement, which is not the case herein. The issue of pension entitlement after compulsory retirement was directly in issue in the 2013 writ petition.This Court rejected it on merits, not on technical grounds. Re-agitating the same issue under the guise of later notifications is procedurally barred. 22. The issue of pension entitlement after compulsory retirement was directly in issue in the 2013 writ petition.This Court rejected it on merits, not on technical grounds. Re-agitating the same issue under the guise of later notifications is procedurally barred. 22. In the parting, adverting to the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that Compulsory retirement cannot be treated as punitive but it is simpliciter retirement, on this limited point, there is some conceptual force, but yet no practical consequence. While it is correct that compulsory retirement is not per se a punishment, however, even compulsory retirement simpliciter does not waive the requirement of minimum qualifying service. Pension is a statutory right, not an equitable one. Thus, even if the petitioner were right on the point of his retirement being non punitive, it still does not advance his case. 23. As an upshot, petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.