[2025:RJ-JP:20790] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15281/2024 Reena Devi Wife Of Late Shri Vedpal Yadav, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Village - Gothara, Tehsil- Tijara, District- Khairthal - Tijara (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (R.s.r.t.c.), Through Its Managing Director, Head Office, Chomu House, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (R.s.r.t.c.), Matasya Nagar Depot, District Alwar (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Yadav For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manjeet Kaur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 16/05/2025 1. Petitioner came up with a case before this Court, stating inter alia that her husband Shri Vedpal Yadav was posted as Conductor on regular basis at Matasya Nagar Depot, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC), but during service, he has passed away on 08.04.2023. Petitioner, being his widow, opted to grant benefit of family pension under Old Pension Scheme (OPS), which has been approved by the respondents- Corporation. However, since period of probation of petitioner’s husband was not being counted in his service tenure, in that eventuality, the instant writ petition has to be filed. [2025:RJ-JP:20790] (2 of 2) [CW-15281/2024] 2. Counsel for petitioner submits that during course of writ petition, respondents- Corporation has issued an order dated 11.03.2025, counting period of probation in the service tenure, subject to deduction of GPF from the salary of probationer, granted during the probation period. Further, counsel drew attention of this Court to a letter dated 25.04.2025 issued by the respondents- Corporation, wherein the Corporation has opined to consider the case of petitioner for grant of family pension under OPS, subject to withdrawal of instant writ petition by the petitioner. Copies of order dated 11.03.2025 and letter dated 25.04.2025, issued by the Corporation, have been placed on record, which are undisputed documents and with consent of counsel for both parties, same are taken on record. 3. In that view of matter, counsel for petitioner, having instructions from petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file afresh in case any new or subsequent cause of action arises. 4. Permission is granted. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. 6. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin/19