VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, widow of the late employee Sh. Ram Sagar Sharma, who died on 11.2.1992, seeks the relief of being granted pension by converting the CPF entitlement of her late husband Sh. Ram Sagar Sharma to pensionary benefit in terms of the office order dated 22.8.1992 of the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB), and of which entity the respondent no. 3/BSES Yamuna Power Limited (BYPL) is the successor entity.

2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband was working with DVB as a Bill Messenger and he died in harness on 11.2.1992. Petitioner pleads that a pension scheme was subsequently taken out by DVB on 22.8.1992 as a result of which petitioner’s husband or the petitioner became eligible to pension by refunding the CPF benefits received along with interest. There was subsequently another office order also issued by the DVB dated 20.5.1998 (wrongly written as 22.8.1998 in the writ petition) extending the period of exercising of the option for converting from CPF scheme to pension scheme.

3. Petitioner pleads that there was the requirement of the scheme of the petitioner to be informed and since the petitioner was not informed by the DVB of her entitlement to change her option from CPF benefit to pensionary benefit, therefore, petitioner who came to know of the scheme for the first time in the year 2002 sent her legal notice dated 29.11.2003 to the respondent no. 1 and since there was no response hence the present writ petition was filed.

4. Originally, there were two respondents in the writ petition. Respondent no. 1 was Delhi Transco Limited DVB Employees Terminal Benefits Fund and respondent no. 2 was Delhi Transco Limited. Taking the pleadings of respondent nos. 1 and 2, this Court had allowed the writ petition as per its judgment dated 16.12.2013 when the respondent no. 3 was not a party. Respondent no. 3 hence filed an appeal against the judgment dated 16.12.2013 in LPA No.710/2014 and this appeal was therefore allowed, inasmuch as, effectively there was a judgment against the respondent no. 3 without the respondent no. 3 being made party to the writ petition. The Division Bench hence vide order dated 9.2.2015 remanded the matter for fresh decision on account of impleadment of the respondent no. 3 and after completion of pleadings qua the respondent no. 3.

5. Admittedly, respondent no. 3 is the legal entity which after unbundling of DVB, is the successor entity of DVB so far as the services of late Sh. Ram Sagar Sharma with DVB are concerned.

6. Respondent no. 3 in its counter affidavit has taken up two main objections. The first objection is that the record of DVB stood weeded out in terms of DVB office order dated 2.3.1998 and hence dispatch and receipt registers maintained as on that date were to be retained only for three years and thereafter were destroyed. Accordingly, firstly it is contended that today in view of the absence of records it is not possible to determine as to whether petitioner was or was not informed for exercising of her option. Secondly, the writ petition is argued to be dismissed on account of delay and laches as petitioner has not given any specific reason as to why petitioner only in the year 2002 came to know of the pension scheme of the years 1992 and 1998, and especially when the son of the petitioner, namely, Sh. Om Prakash Sharma already had got compassionate appointment in the year 1994 on account of death of petitioner’s husband while working with DVB. Since Sh. Om Prakash Sharma was an employee of DVB from 28.12.1994, he would be deemed to know the pension scheme of the year 1998, and it is seen that there is no averment of the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit that the petitioner’s son Sh. Om Prakash Sharma has not been residing with the petitioner for petitioner to have knowledge of the 1998 pension scheme.

7. In my opinion, since earlier the writ petition was allowed in the abse