1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4586/2000. : : Laxmikant Sharma Vs. RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. : : Date of Order 19.1.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. S.R.Surana for the petitioner. Mr. Vinod Goyal for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondents be directed to make him payment of pension with all consequential benefits together with interest @ 18% per annum. Shri S.R. Surana, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner joined services with the respondents on 5.1.1969. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was member of Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and used to regularly contribute towards the found, which was deposited with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur. The petitioner placed on record copy of the representation dated 7.7.1999 2 which is submitted to Chief Production Manager of the respondents at Ajmer indicating that 2.33% of his salary used to be deduced as his contribution towards the said fund. Learned counsel has contended that instead of preparing pension case of the petitioner, the respondents paid to him provident fund whereas the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees Pension Regulations, 1989 (for short “Regulations of 1989”) provided that payment of pension to the employees of RSRTC w.e.f. 1.4.1999 with regard to those who did not opt for pension. Notifications issued by the respondents from time to time provided that in cases where option is not exercised within the stipulated time, they shall be deemed to have opted in favour of pension. The petitioner submitted representations even after his retirement that he is prepared to refund the amount of provident fund and his pension case should be prepared and he should be paid pension as was paid to all those who retired after the enforcement of Regulations of 1989 w.e.f. 1.4.1999. Learned counsel relied on the judgments of this Court in Rajasthan Parivahan Nigam Karamchari & Adhikari Kalyan Samiti, Jaipur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : WLC 2002 (4), 400, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd through its Chairman, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur & Anr. Vs. Mahaveer Prasad Jain : WLC (UC) 2008, 3 206 and Smt. Walu Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : WLC (Raj.) 2004 (5), 563. This Court in number of writ petitions has expressed the view that as per the notifications issued by the respondents the employees were required to submit their option within time specified for receiving pension and such of the employees who failed to submit the option would be deemed to have opted in favour of the pension scheme. The petitioner has prima facie shown that he was member of the Family Pension Scheme and used to contribute towards the funds of that scheme, respondents even than paid him the provident fund. In all aforesaid cases, this Court directed the employees concerned to refund the amount of provident fund and similarly directed the RSRTC to pay such employees pension deeming that he had opted for pension. It was further directed that neither of them would be entitled to charge interest from each other. Shri Vinod Goyal, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner was member of the Provident Fund Scheme and he has received full amount of provident fund pursuant to the order dated 22.4.1999 in the sum of Rs.4,43,412/-. The respondents issued circular on 15.6.1996 inviting options and when the petitioner failed to opt for pension, he could not 4 claim pension now. It was contended that the pension case of the petitioner cannot now be considered because he has filed the present writ petition late. In view of similar judgments passed in number of similar cases, however, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to calculate the arrears of pension of the petitioner with effect from the date of his retirement i.e. 30.4.1998 and adjust the said amount against the amount of provident fund paid to him and if eventually any differential amount if liable to be paid by the respondents, convey the same to the petitioner within one month from the date of production of copy of this order before them and upon the petitioner depositing the said amount start making payment of pension from the first month. It is made clear that since the petitioner had retained the amount of provident fund for all this time, he shall not entitle to any interest for delay in the payment of pension payable during the intervening period and at the same time, the respondents shall also not charge any interest for the refunded amount of CPF. 5 Compliance of the judgment be made within three months from the date copy of the judgment is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.S/7.