- (1.) THESE writ appeals have been preferred by Rajasthan Agriculture University and State of Rajasthan assailing the legality of the order dated 18.9.2007 passed by the Single Bench in CWP No.1738/2003.
(2.) THE petitioner was serving in Rajasthan Agriculture University as Assistant Professor. Earlier he has served with the State Government in Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Department. THEreafter, he joined the service on 5.2.1983 in the erstwhile Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur. In the year 1987, by bifurcating the aforesaid University, Rajasthan Agriculture University was formed in which the services of the petitioner were taken over. THE petitioner has opted voluntary retirement from State services for joining as Assistant Professor on 5.2.1983. He was promoted as Associate Professor and he retired from the service on 30.6.1997. A circular was issued on 25.3.1995 by the Government of Rajasthan stating that in case a Government employee has taken voluntary retirement and thereafter has joined the service of University, the service rendered by such employees in the State shall not be counted for pension. After the said decision was taken by the State Government, the petitioner submitted a representation to the University to permit him to opt for pension. THE petitioner was informed by the University that he had already exercised the option on 3.1.1992 opting for contributory provident fund. Consequently, his option could not be revised. THE petitioner prayed that since other universities in the State of Rajasthan including Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur and Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur and various other university have granted such opportunity, that opportunity should also be given to him to revise his option. THE stand of the University was that once the option has been exercised for receiving contributory provident fund, it could not have been revised. Option once exercised is irrevocable under the Pension Regulations of 1990. THE State Government in the return contended that the University is an autonomous body, hence, no case for interference is made out. The Single Bench has directed the University to permit the petitioner to change his option as after the issuance of the circular dated 25.3.1995 by the Government of Rajasthan, in case of the the employees who have taken voluntary retirement and thereafter joined the University, their services in the State have not been counted by the University, had been given opportunity to revise the option. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Single Bench allowed the writ application. Aggrieved by the order, intra court appeal was preferred and the same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 7.2.2008 as infructuous as the University's Board of Management has already taken decision to comply with the order passed by this Court. The minutes of the Board of Management dated 1.11.2007 were placed before the Division Bench of this Court. As the order was complied with, that appeal was dismissed as infructuous. As against the aforesaid decision rendered on 7.2.2008 by this Court, S.L.P. was preferred before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same has been allowed. The order dated 7.2.2008 passed by this Court has been set aside and this Court has been directed to examine the case of the respondent no.2 on merits whether he could be said to be entitled for pension. Consequently, this appeal has come up for decision afresh. Shri G.R. Punia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Rajasthan Agriculture University as well as on behalf of the State of Rajasthan submitted that the respondent no.2 had exercised his option on 3.1.1992 for becoming a member of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. In view of the option (R/1) dated 3.1.1992, it was not open to revise it subsequently. Merely by the fact that in other universities, opportunity has been given to its employees to exercise such option otherwise, could not be a ground as has been employed by the Single Bench to grant relief to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no case for interference is made out as the option furnished on 3.1.1992 could not have been accepted by the University as it was submitted beyond the period of three months of the notification dated 17.8.1991. The period of 3 months was prescribed and it was made clear in the notification dated 17.8.1991 that the existing employees who do not exercise the option within the period specified shall be deemed to have opted for the pension scheme. Thus, the petitioner failed to exercise the option within the period of 3 months from the date of notification, hence, he is deemed to have opted for pension. As his revised option has not been accepted on the ground of delay, his option beyond the period of 3 months could not have been accepted on same parity of reasoning that the petitioner could have submitted the option for pension scheme after the date was over. All other universities after the circular was issued by the State Government in the year 1995 have permitted to revise the option. The parent university of the appellant i.e. Mohanlal Sukhadia University which was bifurcated and the petitioner's services were handed over to Rajasthan Agriculture University, has also permitted its employees to revise the option. The circular of the Government was binding on the universities and the financial liability was to be fastened upon the State and not upon the University. As such, the decision rendered by the Single Bench calls for no interference in this intra court appeal. In our opinion, in view of the clear language of the notification dated 17.8.1991, an option was required to be exercised within a period of three months failing which the incumbent shall be deemed to have opted for pension scheme. Admittedly, the option was exercised beyond the period of 3 months. It is also not disputed that there was no time extension for exercise of option. Once the option time was not extended, the option exercised by the employee beyond the time could not have been accepted as he shall be deemed to have opted for pension. The relevant part of the notification is quoted below :- "Thus all employees who were in service on 1.1.1990 shall have to exercise their option in writing, either for the pension scheme under these regulations or for continuance under the existing C.P.F. Scheme, within 3 months from the date of notification of this provision and shall submit the same to the Comptroller, Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner in the prescribed form. The existing employees who do not exercise option within the period specified under these regulations shall be deemed to have opted for the pension scheme. Option once exercised shall be final and irrevocable." A reading of the aforesaid portion of the notification dated 17.8.1991 makes it clear that the option once exercised shall be final and irrevocable. As the petitioner has not opted for the option, he shall be deemed to have opted for pension by not exercising the option within 3 months from the date of notification. It is not a case of relaxation. The option offered on 3.1.1992 by the petitioner beyond the period of 3 months could not have been accepted by the University on the parity of reasoning which has been given by it for not accepting to revise the option submitted by the petitioner in view of the circular issued by the State in the year 1995. This fact is not in dispute that in various universities including parent university of the appellant before bifurcation, such option has been permitted to be exercised by its employees. Consequently, a just decision has been given by the Single Bench on merits which does not call for interference by this Court. Resultantly, these intra court appeals are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ;