[2026:RJ-JP:20855-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 292/2022 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12906/2014 Gaja Dhar Parashar S/o Late Shri C.l. Parashar, Resident Of A- 173, Omshiv Colony, Jhotwara, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Energy Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Through Its Chairman, Vidhyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. H.V. Nandwana with Mr. Y.V. Nandwana For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanuj Gupta HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 18/05/2026 1. Heard. 2. We notice that the appellant was an erstwhile employee as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) with the Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited (JVVNL). 3. The case of the appellant is that since he was appointed as a fresh recruitee on the post of Junior Engineer for the first time in the year 1993 and the GPF Pension Rules were applicable on the date of his appointment as a Junior Engineer, he would have to be treated to be entitled for benefit of R.S.E.B. Employees Pension Regulations, 1988 and, therefore, there was no occasion to [2026:RJ-JP:20855-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-292/2022] continue him in the CPF Scheme, merely because he was a LDC and was CPF account holder as LDC from 1976. 4. We notice that the argument may have some role to play however the appellant has been depositing his share with the CPF since he joined in the year 1976 as LDC. Such persons were given option to shift to the pension scheme which included the LDCs too, however, as LDC, he had never opted for pension scheme, which had come into force while he was a LDC. After the petitioner- appellant joined as Junior Engineer he continued to deposit CPF share and never deposited in GPF Scheme. 5. We also notice that on his retirement on 31.07.2012, the appellant availed the benefit of CPF Scheme and, thereafter, he has turned around and claimed pension benefit by filing the writ petition in the year 2014, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 6. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/RAJAT/108