IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 868 (S/S) 2009 Har Pal Singh S/o Sri Surja Singh ..……… Petitioner Versus Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee and others ……… Respondents with Writ Petition No. 867 (S/S) 2009 Mansab S/o Sri Munfait ..……… Petitioner Versus Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee and others ……… Respondents with Writ Petition No. 869 (S/S) 2009 Rashid S/o Abdul Hamid ..……… Petitioner Versus Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee and others ……… Respondents with Writ Petition No. 870 (S/S) 2009 Nathi Ram Sharma S/o Sri Babu Ram Sharma ..……… Petitioner Versus Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee and others ……… Respondents Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri Pankaj Miglani, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vipul Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondents. A counter affidavit has been filed in the Writ Petition No.868 (S/S) of 2009. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 submitted that the controversy involved in the connected writ petitions is the same and the counter affidavit in this petition may be treated as having been filed in the other petitions. For facility, the facts contained in writ petition No.868 (S/S) of 2009 is being taken into consideration. The petitioner was initially appointed as a work charge employee in the year 1966 and was absorbed as a Beldar in the year 1978. In the year 1985, the petitioner was designated as a Pump Operator and on 30th June, 2002, the services of the petitioner was regularized and was designated as a Mechanic. The petitioner retired from service on 31st July, 2007. The petitioner applied for pensionary benefits but the same was rejected by the respondents by an order dated 4th December, 2008. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. The respondents in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit admitted that the Ministry of Human Resource Development by a letter dated 10th May, 2006 conveyed its no objection to the absorption of 33 quasi-regular persons against the regular vacancy subject to certain conditions. The petitioner was one of such person who was absorbed. In paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit it has been averred that the issue of payment of pension to the newly absorbed quasi-regular employees in regular vacancy was referred to the Standing Committee of the Employer Welfare Committee who examined the issue on 20th August, 2009 and again on 15th September, 2009 and submitted its recommendation. The Institution, on the basis of the recommendation of the Standing Committee, took a decision on 12th January, 2010 to the effect that the persons who became regular upto 31/12/2003, would be 3 considered for old pension scheme, i.e., General Provident Fund cum Pension and Gratuity and the person who become regular on or after 01/01/2004, would be considered under the new pension scheme. The respondents further contended in paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit that pursuant to the decision taken by the Institute, pension option was issued to various employees who had been absorbed except the petitioner since the matter was sub- judice before the High Court. In the light of the aforesaid, it is clear that the answering respondents have agreed to pay pension. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to issue the pension option papers to the petitioner within a week from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order. Upon the option being furnished by the petitioner, the authority will release the pensionary benefits alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. within six weeks thereafter. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own cost. Copy of the order be placed in connected writ petition Nos. 867 of 2009, 869 of 2009 and 870 of 2009. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 13.04.2010 Shiv