[2025:RJ-JP:42344-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 841/2025 1. The Chairman And Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Hqrs. Chomu House, Jaipur 2. The Executive Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Hqrs Chomu House Jaipur 3. The Financial Advisor, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Hqrs Chomu House Jaipur 4. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Baran. ----Appellants Versus Chaturbhuj Jangid S/o Shri Jagannath Jangid, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Village Itawa, Post Joula, Distt. Sawaimadhopur. Presently Working As Conductor At Bundi Depot ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kapil Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kunal Rawat with Ms. Dhriti Sharma HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 16/10/2025 1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the appellant- corporation to issue an option form to the respondent (writ petitioner) in accordance with the GPF Pension Rules, 1989 and if the respondent-workman is entitled to the benefits of the GPF, the same shall be granted. [2025:RJ-JP:42344-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-841/2025] 2. The short point involved is that the respondent (writ petitioner) was appointed as a Conductor in 1980 and remained in service until his termination on 30.03.1996 following an inquiry. The respondent contested the termination and successfully obtained reinstatement through a settlement before the learned Single Judge, on the condition that he would not claim back wages upto the date of rejoining. However, the respondent was entitled to notional benefits of pay fixation if he was on a regular pay scale, but not if he was a daily-wage employee, along with continuity of service. Upon rejoining, the respondent opted for the GPF scheme as per the GPF Pension Rules, 1989. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that when the notification for opting into the GPF Pension Rules, 1989 was issued on 15.06.1996, the respondent was under termination and only exercised his option after rejoining in 2014. He contends that this belated option should not have been permitted, as the deadline for exercising the option had lapsed, and granting it retrospectively would contravene the scheme for extending such benefits to employees. He further contends that earlier notifications were issued during the respondent’s service, and since he did not exercise the option then, he would not be entitled for making such option at this juncture. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the respondent’s right to opt for the GPF was alive on 15.06.1996 when the last notification was issued. The respondent was unable to exercise this right as he was not in service at that time due to his termination. The learned Single Judge has rightly protected the rights of respondent by granting him the benefit of the notification [2025:RJ-JP:42344-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-841/2025] dated 15.06.1996, as he rejoined service in 2014 pursuant to the settlement. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case, this Court finds that the respondent, who was not in service on 15.06.1996 due to his termination, could not have exercised the option at that time. Upon reinstatement in 2014, he promptly exercised the option, and the learned Single Judge has rightly protected his entitlement. Thus, no grounds for interference are made out in this appeal. However, the question of law shall remain open. 6. In view of above, the present appeal is dismissed. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J Sudheer / 13