SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5921/98 Bagh Singh Vs. R.S.R.T.C. & Others 16.11.2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prakash Tatia Mr. Neeraj Kumar Bhatt, for the petitioner.\ Mr. NS Rathore, for the respondents. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Driver on 13th May, 1973 in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. The petitioner faced with the order of termination of his service with effect from 21st January, 1986, approached the State Government for referring the matter to the Labour Court to decide the validity of termination of services of the petitioner upon which the labour case no. 183/87 was registered. Learned Labour Court vide award dated 13th May, 1989 declared that the termination of the service of the petitionier is illegal and granted relief of reinstatement to the petitioner with some consequential benefits. The respondents aggrieved against the said award, preferred SB Civil writ petition no. 100/91 before this Court wherein initially interim stay order was granted but that was vacated thereafter and then the petitioner was reinstated in service finally. The writ petition no. 100/91 was dismissed by this Court on 17th August, 1998. According to the respondents, they challenged the judgment of this Court dated 17.8.98 in appeal and according to the appellant in that appeal, the respondents have only challenged the award of back wages and not seeking relief of maintaining the termination of service of the petitioner. The petitioner finally retired on 31st May, 1998. The petitioner's services are governed by the R.S.R.T.C. Employees Pension Regulations, 1989 wherein it has been provided under Regulation 2 that the existing regular employee may submit their written consent for opting for pension. It is also provided that “Any existing employee who does not exercise the option within the specified period of 90 days shall be deemed to have exercised option in form of pension. It is further provided that option once exercised or deemed to have been exercised shall be considered as final. The petitioner's services were terminated with effect from 21st Jaunary, 1986 and his termination was set aside only on 13th May, 1989 and that the award of the Tribunal setting aside the termination of service of the petitioner was stayed by the High Court. The petitioner is in continuing service in view of the award passed by the labour court and he cannot be put to a lower pedestal than the employee who voluntarily when in service do not chose to submit any option under the regulation referred to above. Some what similar circumstances may have been very identical to the facts of the case in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3644/05 “SK Khatri Vs. RSRTC & Others” and vide judgment dated 20th August, 2008, this Court considered the aspect of this matter and held that non exercise of the option for pension is nothing but an option exercised by the employer in view of deeming clause of opting for the pension. In view of the above, this writ petition stands allowed. It is held that the petitioner is entitled to the pensionary benefits and the respondents are directed to give the benefits to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (Prakash Tatia), J. dsr/