Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) NONE appears for the petitioner.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Manish Shishodia submitted that the controversy involved about the option of Pension Scheme by the retired Teachers of the respondent - -University who had already given option for CPF Scheme is no longer res integra and is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7160/2013 - -Rajasthan Agriculture University V/s. State of Rajasthan and ors. decided on 27.8.2013 and was arising out of judgment of this court in the case of D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 32/2008 - Rajasthan Agriculture University V/s. State of Rajasthan and ors. decided on 20.1.2001, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: 22. Though, respondent No. 2 did not exercise his option within the period prescribed under the aforestated Notification, when he had exercised the option on 3rd January, 1992, for continuing to be under the C.P.F. Scheme and when the appellant -University had graciously accepted the option exercised by respondent No. 2, he would not get benefit under the deeming fiction incorporated in the Notification. It would be unfair to the University if the submission of respondent No. 2 is accepted. A special favour was done to respondent No. 2 by accepting his option even after the prescribed period was over. Now, at this stage, after his retirement, respondent No. 2 wants to take undue advantage of the favour done to him by the appellant university, which cannot be permitted. Had respondent No. 2 not exercised his option at all, he would have been surely treated to have accepted the Pension Scheme but as he had given his option late, which had been graciously accepted by the appellant -University, it cannot be said that respondent No. 2 should be treated to have accepted the Pension Scheme. 23. All averments pertaining to employees of other universities are not relevant because each employer university would have its own scheme with regard to payment of retirement benefits to its employees. 24. We may add here that respondent No. 2 is a highly literate person and he must have known the consequences, when he had opted for the C.P.F. Scheme under his letter of option dated 3rd January, 1992. It was his conscious effort to see that he continues with the C.P.F. Scheme and the said effort was respected by the appellant -University by showing special favour, as his option was accepted even after the time prescribed in the Notification was over. 25. For the aforestated reasons, we are of the view that the High Court was in error by giving a direction to the appellant -University that respondent No. 2 should be given pension as if he had opted for the Pension Scheme. 26. The appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs. In view of controversy now having been concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner is not entitled to be given the option for the Pension Scheme and the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed in same terms.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the present writ petition is dismissed in same terms. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.;