1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5192/94 Smt. Ichraj Kanwar & Anr. Vs. State of Raj.& Ors. Date of order : 20/1/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ None present for the petitioner. Shri O.P. Sharma for the respondent. ****** This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondents be directed to pay to the petitioner benefit of pension payable to her husband and after his death pay her family pension. It is contended that the late husband of the petitioner was appointed on the post of driver with the State Roadways Department on 18.8.1960 which was in the department of State of Rajasthan. Subsequently, when the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation was formed, services of her husband were transferred to that. He while so serving, he died on 17.6.1994. The respondents have promulgated the RSRTC Employees Pension Regulations, 1989 and RSRTC Employees GPF Regulations, 1989 which have been notified 2 vide notification dated 2.1.1990 and made effective from 1.4.1989. It was argued that the notification issued by the respondents from time to time required its employees to indicate their option for receiving the pension. Reference was made to one such notification dated 8.2.1992 and which the respondents have produced on record with their additional affidavit. Reference was also made to notification subsequently issued by the respondents on 11.1.1993, which has already been produced by the respondents on record. It was argued that in these notifications it has been provided that such of the employees, who fail to exercise option within given time, it shall be deemed that they have opted in favour of receiving pension. In the present case, it was argued that husband of the petitioner expired on 17.6.1994 and that even though the cut off date in the Regulations of 1989 is given as 1st April, 1989, no limit was fixed for the petitioner or for that matter, for her husband, to exercise the option. Learned counsel submitted that in number of identical cases, this Court has required the 3 respondents to accept the option even at the subsequent date, with direction to the employee concerned to refund the amount of contributory provident fund received. The petitioner shall refund whatever amount was received by her late husband. Similar benefit was extended by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5236/93, Munawar Bano vs. RSRTC decided on 25.11.1993 who too was a widow of the deceased employee of the respondent. Reliance was also placed on S.K. Khatri vs. RSRTC & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3644/05 decided on 20.8.2008. Shri O.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that late husband of the petitioner was a member of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and he received the amount of Rs.36,452/- of the contributory provident fund and Rs.24,300/- of the gratuity when he retired on 31.7.1990. There is no provision either in the Regulations or in the Circulars issued by the Corporation that a widow of retired government servant should be permitted to exercise option on behalf of her husband when he did not 4 exercise option in his lifetime and he never opted for receiving pension. Learned counsel therefore prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Having considered the arguments aforesaid and various Circulars produced by the respondents by way of additional affidavit, I find that the respondents by notification dated 11.1.1993 provided that consequent upon addition of new clause 18D (1) & 18D(2) in the RSRTC Workers and Workshop Employees Standing Order, 1965, RSRTC Employees Pension Regulations, 1989 and RSRTC Employees GPF Regulations, 1989 shall also be applicable to those employees who were governed by the said Order. The respondents also issued number of notifications including the notification dated 8.2.1992 which provided that the employee shall have to exercise option within 60 days and upon their failure to do so, the RSRTC Employees Pension Regulations, 1989 and RSRTC Employees GPF Regulations, 1989 will be applied to him. In the present case, husband of the petitioner was alive till 14.6.1994 and therefore if he did not 5 submit the option, he would not be deemed to have exercised option in favour of receiving pension, but at the same time, he could not be entitled to receive both the benefits and would be required to refund the amount of CPF. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of pension to the petitioner for the period from the date of retirement of her late husband on 31.7.1990 till he died on 14.6.1994 and thereafter grant her family pension. The respondents would be at liberty to adjust the said amount of contributory provident fund received by late husband of the petitioner. Since the husband of the petitioner received the amount of contributory provident fund and retained the same all this time, she would not be entitled to any interest on the arrears of pension and / or family pension. At the same time, the respondents would not be entitled to receive any interest on the amount of CPF retained by the husband of the petitioner / petitioner. Compliance of the judgment be made 6 within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/