Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary

Ram Awtar Gupta S/o Late Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of E-2/231, Chitrakoot Scheme, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur John.c.u S/o Late Ulahannan.c.u., Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of House No 4, Neelum, Nagar, Dahod Road, Banswara. Kailash Raj Mehta S/o Shri Hukum Raj Mehta, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Mehta House, Jata Bas, Jodhpur. Smt. Prem Bhatia W/o Shri Sudershan Bhatia, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of 238,frotier Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. Jinesh Chand Jain S/o Late Shri Umedi Lal Jain, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of 54, Chetan Enclave Second, Jaipur Road, Alwar Om Prakash Kadel S/o Shri Dev Kishan, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of 65, Rudra Vihar, Keshav Nagar, Udaipur. Ajit Kumar Jain S/o Shri Bhagwan Sahay Jain, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of 2/136, Housing Board, Arawali Vihar, Alwar. Smt. Manisha Bhatt W/o Shri Dhirendra Bhatt, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of D And D House, Diesels And Diesels, Dahod Road, Banswara. Laxman Lal Meena S/o Late Shri Hatti Ram Meena, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of C-19, Bal Nagar, Gali Nagar 3, Rao Ji Ka Bagh, Kartarpura, Jaipur Smt. Kunjumole Chacko D/o Shri O. Kunjukunju, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of Padinjare Vila Veedu, Ambi Poika. P.o, P.k.p.kavala, Kundara, Kerala 691501. R.k. Talreja S/o Late Shri Kesu Ram Talreja, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of 17B Shakti Nagar, Udaipur. Kajor Mal Meena S/o Shri Ram Gopal Meena, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of Village Karnawar, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa. Panna Lal Salvi S/o Kishan Lal, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of House No 43, Ward No 63, Adarsh Nagar E Block, Kalka Mata Road, Udaipur. Ashok Kumar Jain S/o Late Shri Jinendra Kumar Jain, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Near Jain Mandir, J.k. Colony, Adinath Nagar, Dausa. Arun Kumar Bhatnagar S/o Late Shri Pratap Singh Bhatnagar, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of 170-E, Block, Hiran Magri, Sector 14, Udaipur. Smt. Lilly Chacko W/o Eapen Chacko, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of Plot No 37A, Tagore Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur Satyanarayan Swami, S/o Late Shri Mohan Das Swami, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of Near Police Station, Ward No 5, Chhaper, District Churu. [2025:RJ-JP:24295] (2 of 8) [CW-12981/2023]

37. Smt. Susamma George W/o Shri Y. Georgekutty, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of Malayila Zhikathu, Ashish Villa, Pulamon (Po) Kottarakara. Kara Kollam ( Distt, Kerala. Sajjan Singh Rathore Late Shri Shardul Singh Rathore, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of B-138,agarsen Nagar, Churu. Ashok Kumar Agarwal S/o Late Shri Radheyshyam Agarwal, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of 251/47, Pratap Enclave, Post Jagatpura, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur. Sundar Lal Oswal S/o Chhigan Lal Oswal, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of 128A, Ganga Sagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Ram Babu Gupta S/o Shri M.c Gupta, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of 78, Prithvi Nagar, Naya Kheda, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. Bhupendra Kumar Karawat S/o Late Shri Manilal Karawat, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of Jai Hind Nagar, Street No 2, Near Shubash Park, New Colony, Dungarpur, Rajasthan. Vinodi Lal Agarwal S/o Kirodi Mal Agarwal, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of 1/226, Arawali Vihar, Kala Kuwa, Housing Board, Alwar. Prem Dayal Verma S/o Late Shri Bribal Ram, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of 132, Rfc Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Kamal Chand Bapna S/o Late Shri Panna Lal Bapna, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of 15A,guru Ramdas Colony, Opp. Choudhary Offset, Udaipur. Mangat Ram Sharma S/o Shri Sua Lal Sharma, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of 148, Scheme No 4, Rajendra Nagar, Alwar. Ashutosh Dixit S/o Shri Upendra Nath Dixit, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of 97, Prithviraj Nagar, Maharani Farm, Durgapura, Jaipur Nihal Chand Choudhari S/o Behru Lal Choudhary, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of 44, Samta Nagar, Gas Godwan Road, Hiran Magri, Sector 3, Udaipur. Retnamma Gopal W/o Shri Gopalkrishnan, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of 141, Brighu Nagar, Behind Gehlot Bangla, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. Hari Singh S/o Maman Ram Bundela, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of B-180,lane No7, Ganga Sagar Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. U.r.mehta S/o Late Shri Bhabhoot Raj Mehta, Aged About 73 Years, Resident Of 75A, Section 7 Extention, New Power House Road, Jodhpur. Radhey Shyam Gupta S/o Shri K.s. Gupta, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of 3/30, Sector 3, Chitrakoot Scheme, Gandhipath, Jaipur. Ajay Kumar Jain S/o Late Shri Dilip Chand Jain, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of 2/512, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur Brij Lal Soni S/o Gokul Chand Soni, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of Ward No 43, Opp. Ramjas Well, Aguma Mohalla, Churu. Chhagan Lal Soni S/o Shri Birdhi Chand, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Opp. Mahila Police Thana, Shiv Parvati Bhawan, A1 [2025:RJ-JP:24295] (3 of 8) [CW-12981/2023]

3. Police Line, Ratanada, Jodhpur. Satish Kumar Mamodia S/o Ram Ji Lal Mamodia, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of 13, Jamna Colony, Dher Ka Balaji, Sikar Road, Jaipur. Pankaj Bhown S/o Shri M.s. Bhown, Aged About 65 Years, 602, Golden Crown, A-44 Sethi Colony, Jaipur 302004. Bhagwan Singh S/o Late Shri Mohan Singh, Aged About 69 Years, Resident Of B-21, Jain Vihar Colony, Behind Kamla Nehru Nagar, Bhakrota, Jaipur. Hari Ram Bhati S/o Late Shri Bahadur Ram, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of 25, Adarsh Nagar, Ramjan Hatha, Near Army Childrens Academy, Banar Road, Jodhpur. Narendra Mal Daga S/o Late Shri Prakash Mal Daga, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of 65-C, Dev Nagar, Pal Link Road, Jodhpur. Mahendra Mehta S/o Shri N.s. Mehta, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of 95/a, Sector B, Saraswati Nagar, Basni, Jodhpur. J.k Purohit S/o Shri Chandradutt Purohit, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of 24, Gulab Nagar, Khem Ka Kua, Pal Road, Jodhpur. Kishan Swaroop Singhal S/o Late Shri B.s. Singhal, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of B-529, Jda Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. Ashok Kumar Godha S/o Late Shri Bhag Chand Jain, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of 50, Sarvodaya Colony, Jawahar Nagar, Ajmer. Shri Kishan Bohra S/o Shri Ramrakh Bohra, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of 9/387, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Arun Kumar Sood S/o Late Shri Naranjan Lal Sood, Aged About 69 Years, Resident Of 53 Rfc Colony, Behind B Block, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Sohan Lal Vyas S/o Shri Bansi Lal Vyas, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Brmhapuri Vaso Ka Chowk Jodhpur. Jagdish Naraian Sharma S/o Shari Ghasi Lal, Aged About 69 Years, Resident Of 222, Mandir Wali Gali, Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Versus ----Petitioners State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Industries Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. The Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. The Managing Director, Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14192/2023 R. Gupta Son Of Late Shri Bhanwar Lal Gupta, Aged About 72 Years, Resident Of Flat No. C-904, C 2 Block, Mangalam Rediance, 1 Airport Plaza, Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur 302018 (Rajasthan) [2025:RJ-JP:24295] (4 of 8) [CW-12981/2023] Versus ----Petitioner

3. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Addl. Chief Secretary, Industries Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. The Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. The Managing Director, Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saxena Mr. Aditya Kiran Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG with Mr. Aman Bohra Mr. Jai Lodha for RFC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 02/07/2025

1. Since the issue involved in both writ petitions is identical in nature, hence with consent of counsel for both parties, both writ petitions have been heard together on merits and would stand decided by this common Order.

2. In both writ petitions, under challenge is Clause 2.2, incorporated in the order dated 26.07.2023 (Ann.11), issued by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (RFC), prescribing scheme for its retired employees to opt for Old Pension Scheme (OPS) in place of Contributed Provident Fund (CPF). For ready reference, Clause 2.2 is being reproduced hereunder:- “2.2 fuxe ls LosfPNd lsokfuo`r dkfeZdksa dks Hkqxrku fd;s x;s ,Dlxzsf”k;k jkf”k esa ls fuxe isa”ku fuf/k ihMh [kkrs esa okil tek djkus dh frfFk rd 12 izfr”kr okf’kZd lk/kkj.k C;kt lfgr tek djkuh gksxhA” Above referred Clause 2.2, impugned herein, has been inserted by the respondent- Corporation, following Clause 5.8, [2025:RJ-JP:24295] (5 of 8) [CW-12981/2023] incorporated in an Order passed by the Government of Rajasthan on 20.04.2023, issued for the identical purpose. For ready reference, Clause 5.8 is being reproduced hereunder:– “5.8 ftu laLFkkvksa esa dkfeZdksa dks LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fÙk dk fodYi fn;k x;k Fkk vkSj LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fÙk ds fodYi dks Lohdkj djus dh fLFkfr esa ex-gratia ;k vU; :i esa vfrfjDr jkf”k nh xbZ Fkh] mu dkfeZdksa }kjk iqjkuh isa”ku ;kstuk dk fodYi fn;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa izkIr dh xbZ ,slh leLr vfrfjDr jkf”k esa ls vk;dj dh Hkqxrku dh xbZ jkf”k dks ?kVkdj “ks’k jkf”k dh 50 izfr”kr jkf”k dks Hkh ml jkf”k dks izkIr djus dh frfFk ls tek djkus dh frfFk rd 12 izfr”kr lk/kkj.k C;kt dh nj ls isa”ku fuf/k esa ,deq”r tek djkuh gksxhA”

3. The contention of counsel for petitioners is that imposing condition to deposit 50% of the ex gratia amount by the employees, who opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) is arbitrary, discriminatory and against the objects, sought to be achieved by way of launching the scheme. Indeed, such ex gratia amount was released to petitioners under the scheme of VRS, in order to seek voluntary retirement, surrendering their future years of service. Hence, petitioners may not be discriminated with the employees, who have been retired on attaining the age of superannuation.

4. It has been pointed out that as per the scheme of RFC, employees, who have retired on attaining age of superannuation, are required to redeposit the amount of CPF with interest, whereas petitioners, who have opted for VRS, are required to re- deposit not only the amount of CPF with interest, but also 50% of ex gratia amount with interest @ 12% per annum, hence the condition to the extent of asking re-deposition of 50% of ex gratia amount with interest @ 12% per annum, as incorporated in Clause 2.2, referred hereinabove, deserves to be set aside.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for State and counsel for respondent- RFC, have refuted the aforesaid [2025:RJ-JP:24295] (6 of 8) [CW-12981/2023] contentions of counsel for petitioners and submit that the scheme of State Government to opt OPS in lieu of CPF, is a scheme of beneficial nature and same depends on the option availed by the retired employees.

6. It has been argued by learned counsel for respondents that the scheme is in the nature of a policy decision of the State Government, which has been followed by the RFC and within scope of writ jurisdiction, this Court would loathe in interference in such policy decision of State Government, followed by the respondent- Corporation.

7. Having considered the rival contentions of counsel for both parties and taking into consideration Clause 2.2, this Court finds that the Government has treated the retired employees in two categories; I category includes employees who have retired on attaining the age of superannuation and II category includes employees who have opted for VRS.

8. The employees, who retired on attaining age of superannuation, if want to opt OPS, are required to re-deposit CPF amount with interest, whereas the employees who opted for VRS, since the ex gratia amount was also released to them by the respondent- Corporation, it has been specified in the scheme that if those employees want to avail the benefit of OPS, shall redeposit CPF amount along with interest and 50% of the ex gratia amount with interest.

9. In the opinion of this Court, such distinction is based on the principle of intelligible differentia. The employees, who availed benefit of VRS cannot claim parity and equality with the [2025:RJ-JP:24295] (7 of 8) [CW-12981/2023] employees, who have retired on attaining age of superannuation. Both categories are different and can be treated differently.

10. In addition to above, this Court finds that the Scheme of OPS is a beneficial scheme and is obviously a policy decision of the State Government, which has been followed by the respondent- Corporation. The OPS is not a binding scheme but optional, hence petitioners cannot pick & choose the scheme in part.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satya Dev Bhagaur Vs. The State of Rajasthan [(2022) 5 SCC 314], while defining the scope of interference of Courts in policy decisions of State, has held and observed in Para no. 15 as under: “15. It is trite that the Courts would be slow in interfering in the policy matters, unless the policy is found to be palpably discriminatory and arbitrary. This Court would not interfere with the policy decision when a State is in a position to point out that there is intelligible differentia in application of policy and that such intelligible differentia has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved.” The ratio decidendi, expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Satya Dev Bhagaur (Supra), has been followed by the Division Bench of Rajsthan High Court in DBCWP No.12341/2021: Dr. Rahul Kumar Sanwariya Vs. State of Rajasthan.

12. The writ jurisdiction of High Court in interfering with the policy decision of the State Government is extremely narrow and a policy decision of State cannot be interfered with, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, unless and until same is proved to be arbitrary, irrational and suffering from lack of jurisdiction or violative to Constitutional/ fundamental rights of citizens. No ground has been make out by the petitioners that calls for interference by this [2025:RJ-JP:24295] (8 of 8) [CW-12981/2023] Court to set aside the impugned Clause 2.2 of order dated

26.07.2023.

13. As a result, challenge made in these writ petitions to Clause

2.2 is devoid of substance and accordingly, these writ petitions are hereby dismissed.

14. It has been apprised by the counsel for petitioners that under interim order passed by this Court dated 05.09.2023, few of the petitioners have re-deposited CPF amount with interest. Hence, it is hereby observed that if those petitioners are willing to deposit 50% of ex gratia amount with interest in terms of Clause

2.2 of the Order dated 26.07.2023, they may do so and thereafter, they shall be eligible to get benefit of OPS in terms of Order dated

26.07.2023 w.e.f 01.04.2023. In case petitioners do not opt to redeposit 50% of ex gratia amount in terms Clause 2.2, they are at liberty to withdraw the amount of CPF with interest, in the light of order dated

06.06.2025, issued by Government of Rajasthan.

15. This Court grants one month’s time to the petitioners, either to choose scheme of OPS in terms of order dated 26.07.2023 or to get refund of their CPF amount, if already deposited.

16. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Sachin/162-163 (SUDESH BANSAL),J