Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS review petition has been filed by the review -petitioner respondent Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation seeking review of the judgment passed by this Court on 20/8/2008. Shri J.K. Singhi, learned senior counsel for the review -petitioner has argued that review -petitioner had originally filed appeal before the Division Bench assailing the judgment of which review is sought. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the review petitioner has placed on record Notification dated 15/6/1996 as Document -1, which was not placed before the Single Bench when the writ petition was allowed. Division Bench taking note of this fact required the review -petitioner to approach the Single Bench by filing proper review petition on that basis. Hence, this review petition.
(2.) SHRI J.K. Singhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the review petitioner argued that though reference of the notification dated 15/6/1996 was made in reply to the writ petition but it could not be placed on record. The aforesaid notification had important bearing on the case. This Court allowed the writ petition on the basis of the interpretation of clause 3(1) of the RSRTC Employees Pension Regulations, 1989 for short, the "Regulations of 1989", which provides that if no such option is exercised within the stipulated time then, Pension Rules, 1989 would mutatis mutandis apply to the employees. This provision however, was amended by the Board of Directors in its 164th meeting convened on 16/12/1994, which has resolved that amendment in clause 3(1) of the Regulations of 1989 shall be effective w.e.f. 1/4/1989 and this would be to the effect that - "any existing employee who does not exercise the final option in favour of pension within the specified period of 90 days shall continue to be regulated under the RSRTC, CPF Regulations 1964". However, the notification dated 15/6/1996 was issued precisely with a view to giving opportunity to such of the employees, who, under the impression that as per originally inserted clause (1) of the Regulations of 1989 that they would be deemed to have opted for pension, were again required to exercise option if they wanted to opt for pension. Learned counsel argued that this important aspect of the matter has not been touched upon by this Single Bench while allowing the writ petition. Reading of the judgment does not show that Single Bench was aware of the fact about amendment in clause 3(1) and it has decided the writ petition on the basis of unamended original clause 3(1). Shri M.K. Shah, learned counsel for the respondent -writ -petitioner has opposed the review petition and argued that writ -petitioner was on deputation with the police department and he on his repatriation from deputation, he rejoined in the Corporation on 14/4/1997. The RSRTC gave fresh option to the employees on 25/2/2003 to submit the option on or before 30/4/2003 and writ -petitioner accordingly submitted his option by 11/4/2003 but option of the writ petitioner was rejected by the Corporation on the premise that he failed to submit the same within thirty days as per clause (8) of the notification dated 15/6/1996. Learned counsel argued that neither copy of the notification dated 15/6/1996 was endorsed to the writ petitioner, nor was he otherwise aware of the requirement of submitting option within thirty days. He therefore exercised such option on the basis of the Circular dated 25/2/2003. Since option was exercised on 11/4/2003 much before the outer limit of 30/4/2003 stipulated therein. He may be deemed to have exercised option within time.
(3.) SHRI J.K. Singhi, learned senior counsel for the review petitioner rejoined and submitted that the circular dated 25/2/2003 does not govern the case of the petitioner. It is meant to give an opportunity to employees, who had earlier opted for pension but if now they wanted to come within the purview of CPF Scheme instead of Pension, they could opt for CPF Scheme.;