CWP (T) No. 5831 of 2008 26.4.2010 Present: Mr. Ashwani K. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.M.Negi, Dy. Advocate General, for the respondents. The petitioner has prayed for grant of pensionary benefits from the date of his retirement alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. He was working as Manager (Hiring) with Nahan Foundry Limited. On 5.10.1989 he requested for his pre-mature retirement w.e.f. 30.4.1990. In the meanwhile, vide order dated 23/27-12-1989, the Government took over the Nahan Foundry Limited and converted it into the State Workshop for Public Works and IPH Department. The services of all the ministerial, technical and class-IV employees of the Nahan Foundry Limited were deemed to be taken over by the State and transferred to H.P. PWD and IPH Workshop. The employees, in terms of clause 3.1 of the aforesaid order, were to exercise their option for the General Provident Fund cum Pension Scheme if they were not to continue with the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. On 15.3.1990, though the petitioner exercised his option for the G.P.F. cum pension Scheme, but, however, prior to the said date order dated 7.3.1990 was passed to the effect that the petitioner would stand retired from the Nahan Foundry Services w.e.f. 30.4.1990. This order has not been assailed. Apparently the parties had not intended to act upon the option exercised by the petitioner on 15.3.1990. This is evident from letter dated 16.2.1999, which reads as under:- “From: General Manager, Nahan Foundry Limited, Nahan. No.GM/1039 Dt.16.2.1999 To The Executive Engineer (MEch.)., HP PWD/IPH State Workshop (NF), Nahan Sub: Notice under Section 80 CPC served by Sh.R.N.Mehta through Advocate Sbhri R.L.Garg. Sir, In this connection, it is stated that we had paid Rs.30088/- as Leave salary and Rs.73711/50 paise as Gratuity on 21.5.1990. He had also withdrawn full Employees provident Fund from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Shimla.. Yours faithfully, For Nahan Foundry Limited, Sd/- General Manager.” The petitioner unconditionally accepted the benefits accruing to him under the earlier Scheme. This fact, in fact, was not even mentioned in the petition. The suppression is writ large. The petitioner has failed to show infraction of any of his legal rights. In these circumstances OA No.1582 of 1999, which now stands renumbered as CWP (T) No.5831 of 2008 is dismissed. 26th April, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.