- (1.) THE writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19th January, 2006 passed in O.A. No. 111 of 2005. We have heard the parties and meticulously examined the impugned order passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal. Learned Tribunal has dealt with all relevant aspects and has observed that for enforcing the amended CCS (Pension) Rules, option has to be exercised by the employee to that regard, but in the instant case, option was not exercised by the applicant's husband. Learned Tribunal held that under that circumstance, rejection of her claim on the ground of taking two benefits, is not supported by law and material on record.
(2.) CONSIDERING the above, learned Tribunal has directed the Indian Institute of Horticulture Research to request the Government of Bihar for sending the contribution and the State of Bihar has been directed to send the contributory pension, so that pension can be released to the applicant.
(3.) THE impugned order has been challenged mainly on the ground that the applicant's husband was governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules adopted by the ICAR for its employees. It is admitted that before joining the Central Government, the petitioner was an employee of the State Government. However, for implementing the provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules, admittedly, the employee had to exercise its option. No material or document has been brought on record even in the writ petition to show that the applicant's husband had exercised such option. We, therefore, find no arbitrariness or illegality in the conclusion drawn by the Tribunals. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.;