[2025:RJ-JP:32318] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5340/2011 Gopesh Kumar Joshi S/o Shri Shiv Shankar Joshi, aged about 57 years, R/o. Sagar Upar Munshi Maharani Ki Charti Ke Pass, Alwar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary Power, Governemnt Secretariat, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Jaipur Vidhyut Pasaran Nigam Limited through its Controller of The Accounts (CPF Boards and Pension), Vidhyut Bhawan, Janpat, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Rajasthan State Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Alwar Circle, Near Kali Mori Phatak, Alwar. 4. The Assistant Engineer-A-I, Rajasthan State Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Limited., Town Hall, Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Tiwari Advocate with Mr. Rohit Tiwari Advocate, Mr. Pushpendra Singh Tanwar Advocate. For Respondents : Ms. Swati Daga Advocate on behalf of Mr. Alok Garg Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment RESERVED ON :: 14.08.2025 PRONOUNCED ON :: 21.08.2025 1. Petitioner has filed instant writ petition with following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this writ petition in the interest of justice and:- (i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the action/inaction/omission on the part of the respondents in not accepting the option of the petitioner so submitted way [2025:RJ-JP:32318] (2 of 6) [CW-5340/2011] back on 24th June, 1997 so registered at No. 8033 to subscribe under Employees General Provident Fund Scheme of RSEB, 1988 may kindly be declared as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. (ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to accept the option of the petitioner so submitted on 24th June, 1997 allowing the petitioner to subscribe to the Employees General Provident Fund Scheme, 1988 of the then RSEB with pension and gratuity/benefits as per the Rules of Government of Rajasthan as allowed to the similarly situated employees accordingly and further to allow all the benefits under the said Scheme as admissible and as given to the other employees; (iii) Any other order which this Hon’ble Court considers expedient, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner; and (iv) Cost of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the humble petitioner.” 2. The petitioner has contended in the writ petition that he was initially appointed on the post of Meter Reader on 11.02.1980 in the erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB), which was later on dissolved and five new companies including Jaipur Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (JVPNL) were incorporated. Services of the petitioner were taken over/transferred to JVPNL. It was submitted that while the petitioner was working in RSEB, he was member of Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme. However, in the year 1988, the scheme of Employees General Provident Fund was introduced and the options were invited from the employees to opt for Employees GPF Scheme, 1988 or to continue with the earlier CPF Scheme. As per the petitioner, he submitted his option form on 24.06.1997 in the office of Assistant Engineer to opt for Employees GPF Scheme, who, in turn, forwarded the same to the competent authority vide despatch no. 8033 dated 24.06.1997. 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that option form was submitted by him well within time [2025:RJ-JP:32318] (3 of 6) [CW-5340/2011] prescribed, yet the respondents did not acknowledge the same and did not confirm that the Employees GPF Scheme shall be applicable in respect of the petitioner. He went on submitting repeated representations before the authorities and even legal notice was served upon the respondents through his advocate, yet no heed was paid. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that RSEB Employees Pension Regulations, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Regulations of 1988’) were made effective with effect from 28.11.1988 and vide official notice dated 06.01.1989, options were invited from the employees of erstwhile RSEB for opting for the aforesaid scheme within a period of 90 days and to submit the option form enclosed with the notice. Time for submitting option was extended from time to time and lastly, such notice was issued in the year 1997, whereby, last opportunity was granted to submit necessary option by 30.06.1997. 5. It was submitted that thereafter, after dissolution of RSEB, five new companies including respondent-Jaipur Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (JVPNL) were incorporated. The record of the erstwhile RSEB was also handed over to the respondent- JVPNL. It has been admitted in the reply that option submitted by the petitioner on 24.06.1997 was although sent by Respondent No. 4 to the competent authority, yet there is no record to show that the competent authority, i.e., the Chief Accounts Officer (P&F) had received the same. Under such circumstances, the petitioner was treated to be member of erstwhile CPF Scheme and was not extended benefit of Employees GPF Scheme. It has also been [2025:RJ-JP:32318] (4 of 6) [CW-5340/2011] submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that later on, order dated 08.05.2023 was issued by Respondent providing for GPF linked pension scheme introduced vide order dated 20.04.2023. As per order dated 20.04.2023, in case employee applied for GPF linked pension scheme and deposits the benefits earlier received under the CPF Scheme, then, under such circumstances, after making notional fixation, his/her pension shall be started with effect from 01.04.2023. As per learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner had opted for benefits under order dated 20.04.2023 and after depositing CPF amount, now the benefit of pension is being granted to the petitioner with effect from 01.04.2023. Therefore, cause of action for filing writ petition does not survive and the writ petition is liable to dismissed as having become infructuous. 6. I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. 7. Firstly, I find it proper to deal with the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents that on account of availing benefits of scheme introduced by the respondents during pendency of instant writ petition, whether the writ petition has been rendered infructuous or not. 8. Bare perusal of order dated 20.04.2023 would make it clear that vide aforesaid order, pension was to be started from 01.04.2023 and no benefits earlier thereto were to be given to the concerned employee. The petitioner has placed his declaration form/option form on record in order to show that he applied for the benefits under the Scheme of 2023 under protest and without prejudice to his rights connected with instant writ peition. [2025:RJ-JP:32318] (5 of 6) [CW-5340/2011] 9. In view of above, mere availing benefits under order dated 20.04.2023 cannot be said to be waiver of any of the rights of the petitioner and only on this ground, writ petition cannot be held to have become infructuous. 10. The petitioner has categorically stated that within time prescribed for opting Employees GPF Scheme, he had submitted his option on 24.06.1997 and the option form was deposited in the office of Assistant Engineer. He has also placed copy of his option form on record as Annexure-1, which bears receipt no. 8033 dated 24.06.1997. In its reply, the respondents do not deny this fact that option was given by the petitioner and the same was also sent by Respondent No. 4, yet their only objection is that there is no record to show that it was received in the office of Chief Accounts Officer (A&F). 11. An employee was expected to submit option form before his controlling authority and in the instant case, as admitted by the respondents, the petitioner has submitted his option in the office of Assistant Engineer, who had also forwarded the same to the competent authority. In case, after unbundling of erstwhile RSEB and incorporation of respondent-JVPNL and JVVNL, the option form is not be available in the office of respondents, the petitioner cannot be made sufferer for no fault of his own. He was not expected to ensure that the option form sent by his controlling authority would reach in the office of competent authority. Admittedly, the petitioner has done what he was required to do. Under these circumstances, for any in house disorder in the office of the respondents, the petitioner cannot be put to [2025:RJ-JP:32318] (6 of 6) [CW-5340/2011] disadvantageous position and he cannot be deprived of his legitimate rights for which he was otherwise entitled to. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances and after analysis of entire record, writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to grant him benefit of Employees GPF Scheme, 1988 on the basis of option form submitted by the petitioner on 24.06.1997. The respondents shall sanction and issue necessary orders and release the benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 13. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J MANOJ NARWANI