VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who superannuated in the month of April, 2010, has been denied pensionary benefits in accordance with the RSEB Employees Pension Regulation, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulation of 1988', for short), and therefore, has approached this Court for the following relief(s): - "i) by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to produce the complete record relating to the present case before this Hon'ble Court; ii) by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to allot the GPF Account Number and grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner; iii) Any other order or direction as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in favour of the humble petitioner be also passed; iv) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) BRIEFLY , the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy involved herein needs to be first noticed. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'RSEB', for short), invited option from its employees, who intended to switch over to Pension Scheme under the Regulation of 1988. The last date of receipt of the option forms was 31st July, 1997. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that he submitted his option form on 4th April, 1997, (Annexure -2), in the office of Accounts Officer (O&M), RSEB, Jaipur (now re -designated as Senior Accounts Officer, Jaipur Zone, JVVNL, Jaipur). The petitioner also consented for the accumulation, in his Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Account along with interest, may be credited to GPF Account under the Regulation of 1988. The option form submitted by the petitioner was forwarded to the office of Controller Accounts, RSEB, Jaipur. Since, the employer did not respond with reference to option submitted by the petitioner, he addressed a communication on 13th July, 2005, followed by another communication to the same effect on 27th April, 2000. Vide communication dated 13th July, 2005, the matter was again brought to the notice of the employer. Since the representations evoked no response, a notice for demand of justice was addressed through counsel on 20th July, 2006. The representations as well as notice for demand of justice have evoked no response. It is further pleaded that no terminal benefits in accordance with the Regulation of 1988, have been released to the petitioner even after his superannuation in April, 2010.
(3.) IN response to the notice of the writ application, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit admitting the fact that the petitioner submitted the required option form on 4th April, 1997, but the claim has been denied for the option exercised by the petitioner did not reach the office of the Chief Accounts Officer (P&F), RSEB, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, until the last date i.e. 31st July, 1997. Further, it was the duty of the petitioner to ensure that the option form, submitted by him, reached the office of the Chief Accounts Officer. The respondents have also pleaded that in view of the notices/circulars/orders, it is the duty of the employee to ensure that the option exercised by him, under the Regulation of 1988, reaches the office of the Chief Accounts Officer (P&F), RSEB, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. However, neither any specific reference to such notice/circular/order has been detailed out in the counter affidavit nor the same has been placed on record. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the materials available on record.;