1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Lakhan Singh. Versus Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2415/2005 ... Date of Order: Sept.10, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. S.S. Khatri, for the petitioner. Mr. M.P. Goswami for Mr. Anil Bacchawat, for the respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. S.N. Tiwari, Deputy Government Counsel, for respondents No.4 and 5. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to make payment of pension and the retiral benefits with interest @ 18% per annum. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material on record. 2 The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Driver with the respondent Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, “RSRTC” hereinafter). However, subsequently, the petitioner resigned from the post by an application dated 9-5-1996, which came to be accepted with effect from 21-6-1996 by the order Annx.1. In the writ petition, the petitioner came with the case that he was a member of Contributory Provident Fund as well as General Provident Fund and, therefore, he is entitled for the pension and other retiral benefits. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent RSRTC, the employer, stating therein that the petitioner was a member of Contributory Provident Fund and entitled for the pension under the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 (for short, “the Pension Scheme, 1971” hereinafter) and the P.P.F. amount payable under the Scheme, 1971 amounting to Rs.5351/- has been remitted to the respondent No.4 the Pension Department and the same was paid by the Pension Department to the petitioner vide Cheque No.17257 dated 22-6-1999 and the petitioner withdrew that amount from his Bank Account No.11046 vide Annx.R/1. Learned counsel for the respondent RSRTC, the employer, specifically stated that the petitioner had never been a 3 member of Roadways Pension Scheme, 1989 (for short, “the Pension Scheme, 1989” hereinafter). From the record, it is clear that the petitioner failed to establish that he was a member of the Pension Scheme, 1989 and the respondent RSRTC came with the case that the petitioner had not been a member of the Pension Scheme, 1989. This fact has not been been controverted by the petitioner by way of filing a rejoinder. Thus, there is no proof that the petitioner was a member of Pension Scheme, 1989. So far as the petitioner being a member of Pension Scheme, 1971 is concerned, whatever he had contributed, has been paid to him as per the said Scheme and this fact has not been denied even by the petitioner. In the circumstances, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any other amount either from the respondent-employer RSRTC or from the respondent Pension Department. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is dismissed accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R. PANWAR), J. mcs