MUKTA GUPTA, J

1. Both these petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment as the Petitioners herein are aggrieved by the inaction of the Respondents in not implementing the Office Memorandum dated 5th July, 1989 (in short 'the OM’) and granting them pensionary benefits in terms thereof.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that in terms of this Office Memorandum the Petitioners were entitled to be given an option to retain the pensionary benefits available to them under the Govt. Rules or be governed by the rules of the Public Sector Undertaking/Autonomous Body, that is, avail the Provident Fund Contribution Scheme or the Pension Scheme. In view of the inaction of the Respondents in not offering the options, the Petitioners made representations which were rejected vide letters dated 14th August, 1995 and 23rd August, 1995 Annexures P-8 and P-9 in Writ Petition (C) No. 4599 of 1995 and vide impugned letter dated 3rd October, 2007 Annexure P-11 in WP(C) No. 8789/2007 the Employees Provident Fund Scheme was extended to the Petitioners w.e.f. 1st April, 1995. The Petitioners seek a direction to the Respondents to give the Petitioners an option to either choose th