[2026:RJ-JP:7603-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1456/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5340/2011 1. The Jaipur Vidhyut Pasaran Nigam Limited, Through Its Controller Of The Accounts (Cpf Boards And Pension) Vidhyut Bhawan, Janpat, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. 2. The Superintending Engineer, Rajasthan State Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Alwar Circle, Near Kali Mori Phatak, Alwar. 3. The Assistant Engineer-A-1, Rajasthan State Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Town Hall, Alwar. ----Appellants Versus 1. Gopesh Kumar Joshi S/o Shri Shiv Shankar Joshi, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Sagar Upar Munshi Maharani Ki Charti Ke Pass, Alwar. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Power, Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Ms. Vartika Mehra, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Rahul Lodha For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 16/02/2026 This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants against the order dated 21.08.2025 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5340/2011. [2026:RJ-JP:7603-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-1456/2025] Brief facts of the case as mentioned in Para No.2 of the said order dated 21.08.2025 read as under:- “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.” Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in not considering the RSEB Employees Pension Regulations. Counsel further submits that the respondent has not submitted his option in view of the said regulations within time till 30.06.1997 and prayed for allowing the appeal. The learned Single Judge considering the matter in detail including the issue of submitting the option by employee before 30.06.1997, para Nos.10 & 11 observed as under:- “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 [2026:RJ-JP:7603-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-1456/2025] 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 disadvantageous position and he cannot be deprived of his legitimate rights for which he was otherwise entitled to.” We have gone through the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and in our considered view, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is just and reasonable as the employee has proved by submitting the document as Annexure-1 dated 24.06.1997 alongwith receipt No.8033, thus we are of the considered view that the employee has submitted his option for taking the benefit of Employees GPF Scheme, 1988 within time. In that view of the matter, this appeal stands dismissed. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J JYOTI /35