32 of 2008 and at the same time a decision was taken by the appellant University number to change its decision with regard to giving benefit of the C.P.F. Scheme to respondent No.
He specifically stated in his companymunication dated 3rd January, 1992 that he did number opt for the Pension Scheme.
Perhaps as a special case, the option exercised by him had been accepted by the appellant University and the acceptance was kept on record after the authorized signatory of the appellant University had accepted the option.
2, thereafter made a grievance that as he had number exercised his option within the prescribed period of 3 months from the date of the Notification dated 17th August, 1991, as per the companyditions incorporated in the said Notification, he should have been deemed to have opted for the Pension Scheme and therefore, he should be paid pension as per the Pension Scheme.
On 30th June, 1997, respondent No.
2 was also asked to give his option whether he was inclined to opt for a Pension Scheme or for a C.P.F. Scheme.
2 had worked with the State of Rajasthan in Veterinary Animal Husbandry Department.
After being in employment of the appellant University, along with entire staff of the appellant University, respondent No.
In the circumstances, after about 6 years, respondent No.
2 had number been accepted because the appellant University had already accepted the option of C.P.F. Scheme exercised by him.
It was further provided in the Notification that the employees, who would number exercise the option within 3 months from the date of the Notification, would be deemed to have opted for the Pension Scheme.
The High Court allowed the petition by giving a direction to the appellant University to companysider the case of respondent No.
2 had been accepted by the appellant University and as the amount payable to respondent No.
This was a favour done to respondent No.
1 ANIL R. DAVE, J. Leave granted.
1738 of 2003 dated 20th January, 2001, by the High Court of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan Agriculture University has filed this appeal.
2 had already paid to him, it was number open to respondent No.
2 was in employment of the appellant University.
By virtue of the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court, the appellant University was directed to give pension to respondent No.
2 and the said option exercised by him, even though at a belated stage, had been accepted by the appellant University.
Thus, the Division Bench of the High Court has directed the appellant University to change the manner in which retirement benefits should be calculated and give pension to respondent No.
2 companyld number intimate his option to the appellant University within the period prescribed but by his letter dated 3rd January, 1992, he had opted for the C.P.F. Scheme.
Thus, his option for companytinuation under the P.F. Scheme had been accepted by the appellant University.
The options were invited by the appellant University under Notification No.
1738 of 2003 praying for a direction to the effect that the appellant University should pay pension to him.
The appellant University has been aggrieved by the aforestated judgment and therefore, this appeal has been filed.
Being aggrieved by the aforestated direction, the appellant University had filed D.B. Civil Special Appeal W No.
He had drawn our attention to the letter of option duly signed and filed before the appellant University by respondent No.
Subsequently, the said university had been bifurcated and the appellant University was formed.
It was stated in the said Notification that the employees who were in service of the appellant University as on 1st January, 1990, shall have to exercise their option in writing, either for the Pension Scheme or for companytinuation under the existing C.P.F. Scheme within 3 months from the date of the Notification.
Service of respondent No.
After taking voluntary retirement from his State service, he had joined the erstwhile Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur.
Respondent No.
Pension RAJAU C/91/F 75/3668 768 dated 17th August, 1991.
The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in a nutshell, are as under Respondent No.
2 filed B. Civil Writ Petition No.
Prior to his employment under the appellant University, respondent No.
2 companyld number have been permitted to change his stand after his retirement.
Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered in D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No.
Unfortunately, respondent No.
32 of 2008 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
The request made by respondent No.
