JUDGMENT :

Arun Bhansali, J.

1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by order dated 01.08.2019 (Annex. 5) passed by the respondent - University, whereby, the pension payment of the petitioners has been stopped.

2. At the outset it may be noticed that though reply to CW 10248/2021 has not been filed, both the learned counsel, for the petitioner and the University submitted that the facts and documents in said petition and other two petitions are identical and therefore, the said petition may also be heard and decided together with other two petitions.

3. As the pleadings in SBCWP No. 12154/2019 are complete, the facts indicated therein and documents filed in the said petition have been taken into consideration and referred to hereinafter.

4. The petitioners retired from service of the respondent - University on attaining the age of superannuation on different dates from various departments and were holding different designations as has been indicated in the writ petitions.

5. It is inter alia indicated in the writ petitions that on 17.8.1991, a notification was issued by the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner, introducing Pension Scheme for the employees of the University. The scheme came into force w.e.f. 01.01.1990 and granted option to switch over from Contributory Provident Fund ('CPF') to Pension Scheme; the scheme required exercise of option within the period specified under the scheme and on failure, it shall be deemed that employees have opted for the pension scheme.

6. It is indicated that petitioners submitted option for CPF within stipulated time of three months from the date of notification, however, it is claimed that the Dean has failed to forward the option to the Administrative Officer of the University. Consequently, the petitioners were considered as deemed to have opted for pension scheme.

7. For the plea that option exercised by the petitioners, was not accepted, reliance has been placed on document dated 25.8.2014 (Annex. 2). Further material has been produced i.e. list of those, who had opted for CPF scheme (Annex. 3) and it is claimed that as their names don't figure in the said list, they shall be deemed to have opted for pension scheme. Thereafter, reliance has been placed on the pension payment orders issued to the petitioners.

8. It is then indicated that suddenly by order dated 01.08.2019, payment of pension to the petitioners was stopped on the ground that they had exercised option for CPF, which could not have been changed.

9. The respondents relied on communication dated 02.07.2019 issued by the State and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was claimed that the decision of the State was not informed and that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court was not applicable to the petitioners.

10. Based on the above submission, it was claimed that the action of the respondents in passing the order dated 01.08.2019 was illegal and void as the same was passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, as such the same was in violation of principles of natural justice.

11. It is further claimed that though the petitioners had opted for CPF but their options were not accepted and they were treated as pension optees pursuant to the notification dated 17.8.1991, the petitioners started getting pension from the date of their retirement and are receiving the same for over 10 to 15 years and as such the action of the respondents being arbitrary deserves to be set aside. Based on the above submissions, prayer was made to set aside the order dated 01.08.2019.

12. Reply to the writ petitions has been filed by the University inter alia indicating that petitioners were initially appointed in the University of Udaipur and on creation of new university after bifurcation, they were transferred to Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner, and finally retired from Maharana P