IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.345 of 2011. - - - - - - - - - The Commissioner, Regional Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, R-Block, Road No.6, District Patna, Bihar …….Review-petitioner. Versus Sahdeo Krishna Das son of Late Dayanand Das, Resident of Nehru Nagar, Patliputra Colony, P.S. Patliputra, District Patna …….. Writ-petitioner Respondent. ----------- For the appellant : Mr. R.S.Pradhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. A.N.Rai, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Rajendra Kjmar Jain, Advocate Mr.Achuta Nand Sinha, Advocate. 4. 07.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent- writ petitioner. From the order dated 8th January 2010 whereby the writ petition bearing C.W.J.C.No. 2799 of 2005 was allowed by the writ Court, it is clear that the order was consensual and the Court allowed the writ petitioner the pension scheme under Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1995 on depositing the required amount as desired by the appellant. Subsequently, a review petition was filed seeking review of that order after the employee had deposited the money, on the ground that letters received from the Employees Provident Fund Organization, New Delhi in case of some individual claimant stood in the way of the authorities in granting the benefit of pension to the writ petitioner. The letters contained in Annexure-2 & 3 to the review application are of 2008 and 2010 issued much after the cause of action arose in the writ petition filed in the year 2005. They do not contain any general clarification in respect of clause-6 & 7 of the Scheme of 1995 and the 2 stand taken in those letters in the case of some other employees does not appear to be general in nature applicable to all claimants, such as, the writ petitioner. On going through the provisions of Para-6(a) of the Scheme, we find that there was no legal hurdle in granting benefit of pension to the writ petitioner and Para-7 which requires the option for joining the scheme relates to other categories of persons mentioned in Para-6(c) & (d) of the Scheme. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed. Jay/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) ( Shivaji Pandey,J)