1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8243/2007 Suresh Chouhan. vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8243/2007 Suresh Chouhan. vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & ors. Date : 14.9.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.RS Saluja, for the petitioner. Mr.Ravi Bhansali, for the respondents. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner joined service in erstwhile R.S.E.B. as Junior Engineer on 7.2.84. The petitioner in due course was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer and at present, the petitioner is in service and holding the post of Executive Engineer. The then R.S.E.B. Issued R.S.E.B. Pension Regulations, 1988 wherein options were called from the employees for switching over to G.P.F. Scheme for getting the benefit of pension and gratuity. The first opportunity was given in the year 1992 but the petitioner did not choose to avail the same. However, the respondents 2 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8243/2007 Suresh Chouhan. vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & ors. themselves decided to give one more opportunity to the employees and in the year 1997, the respondents again asked the employees for giving their option and the cut out date fixed was 30.6.97. It is not in dispute that the petitioner submitted his option form on 2.6.97 and that reached to the competent authority as forwarded by the lower authority. The contention of the petitioner is that since he has already submitted his option form, therefore, he is entitled to that scheme whereas the respondents are not treating him to be entitled to the said benefits. The respondents only contention is that though the respondents received the option form well in time but there were some defects in the form and it was incomplete and, therefore, it was sent back to the petitioner on 26.7.97 and thereafter, the competent authority did not receive the option form, therefore, according to the respondents, the petitioner cannot be treated as member of the G.P.F. Scheme entitled to pensionary benefits. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. 3 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8243/2007 Suresh Chouhan. vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & ors. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is an employee of erstwhile R.S.E.B. and was given the option of availing the benefit of G.P.F. Scheme and so also, the petitioner applied for the same by filling the form. So far as the fact that the form was incomplete or there were defects in the form, this is a vague statement of the respondents without there being any supportive evidence and that appears to be based on some assumption as the respondents admitted that they are not having the original form or the copy of the form so as to show that there were any defects or the form was incomplete. However, even if there was any defect or the form was incomplete and if any objection was raised, it did not reached to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner had no opportunity to cure the defects. The petitioner since submitted the option form on 2.6.97 and if that form would have been rejected in time, the petitioner could have submitted another form in time. Be it as it may be, the fact remains is that incomplete form never reached to the petitioner so as to complete it. Seeking option of an employee was to see the intention of the employee as to whether he wants to avail the benefit of the 4 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8243/2007 Suresh Chouhan. vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & ors. scheme and that has been conveyed by the petitioner to the respondents unequivocally with clear intention that he want to avail the benefit of that scheme and because of procedural fault, he cannot be made to suffer when what was the fault of the petitioner is not known till today. Consequently, this writ petition succeeds, hence, allowed and the decision of the respondents dated 14.3.2005 rejecting the petitioner's entitlement to the G.P.F. Scheme is set aside and quashed. It is held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of G.P.F. Scheme with the benefit of pension and gratuity. If any formality remains pending, then that can be completed by the petitioner for which the respondents may ask the petitioner to do so. There shall be no orders as to costs. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya