[2025:RJ-JP:31406] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8719/2012 Laxman Singh S/o Shri Beerbal Ram, aged about 52 years, R/o Village Bankoti, Post Bilwa, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjunu (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1.Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited (A Govt. of India Undertaking) through its The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Head Office at Ambedkar Bhawan, Opposite C.G.O., CGO Complex, High Land Drive, Seminary Hills Nagpur (Maharashtra) 440009 2. Assistant P.F. Commissioner (Pension Employees Provident Fund Organization Regional/Sub Regional Officer, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Singh Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Kumawat for Mr. Rajesh Jain Mr. N.S. Yadav with Mr. Abhiuday Karan Bairwa HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 12/08/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition for seeking direction against the respondents to modify pension payment order dated 15.02.2012 by changing the date of entitlement of the pension from 04.01.2012 to 02.11.2009. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, under Clause-XII (Monthly Member's Pension) of the scheme, member of the scheme is entitled for superannuation pension if he has rendered qualified services of 10 years or more and retires on attaining the age of 58 [2025:RJ-JP:31406] (2 of 3) [CW-8719/2012] years. Further, an early pension is also admissible in the cases where before attaining the age of 58 years but after completion of age of 50 years; and after rendering services of 10 years or more, the concerned member applies for pension. In such circumstances proportionately reduced pension shall be given to the employee. Accordingly, petitioner submitted an application for granting him reduced pension. Grievance of the petitioner is that although he had completed age of 50 years on 02.11.2009, yet the pension has not been granted from the date of completion of 50 years of age and rather it has been granted from the subsequent date i.e. 04.01.2012, which has caused grave prejudice and financial loss to the petitioner. He has also prayed for awarding interest over such pension. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents while indicating the application form submitted by the petitioner (Annex- R/1) argued that as per Clause-8 of the application form, member seeking reduced pension was required to fill up the date of option for commencement of pension however, the relevant column was left blank by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, finding no other option, the respondents have treated date of application as date of option of the petitioner. Since, the application was submitted on 04.01.2012, hence, reduced pension has been sanctioned to the petitioner w.e.f. 04.01.2012. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that action of the respondent is strictly in accordance with scheme of 1995 and the pension has also been sanctioned from 04.01.2012 without any delay, for which the petitioner is entitled as per his date of application. [2025:RJ-JP:31406] (3 of 3) [CW-8719/2012] 5. I have considered the submission and perused the record. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has utterly failed to point out his option with regard to date for opting reduced pension and under these circumstances, he cannot claim that immediately on completion of 50 years of service, the pension ought to have been released by the respondents. The petitioner himself has filed the application much after crossing the age of 50 years and has also not indicated the date from which he wanted to get the pension. There was no delay in releasing the pension, hence, he is also not entitled for any interest whatsoever. 7. In view of above, I do not find any arbitrariness or illegality in the action of the respondent and the petition filed by the petitioner is, hereby, dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J Neeru/27