JUDGMENT :

Per Mehta, J.

1. These intra court appeals are directed against the common order dated 04.01.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court rejecting the writ petitions preferred by the petitioners appellants for assailing the order dated 01.08.2019 passed by the respondents Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MPUAT’) whereby, payment of pension being made to the petitioners was stopped.

2. The controversy in brief may be summarized as below:-

The appellants herein were serving in the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner at the relevant point of time. A notification dated 17.08.1991 was issued by the Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner introducing Pension Scheme for the employees of the University. Before that, all employees of the University were availing the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPF scheme’). The Pension scheme which came into force w.e.f. 01.01.1990 gave an option to the employees to switch from the CPF Scheme to the Pension Scheme. The scheme mandated exercise of switching option upon the employees of University within the stipulated time and in the event of failure to submit the option, an automatic consequence was provided that the employees would be deemed to have opted for the Pension Scheme.

It is an admitted case that the appellants herein submitted the option for the CPF scheme within the stipulated time of three months from the date of notification. However, they claim that the Dean failed to forward their option forms to the University and thus, by virtue of deeming clause supra, the petitioners were treated as covered under the Pension Scheme. The petitioners have buttressed that their option of CPF was never acted upon/accepted and for this purpose, reliance is placed on a communication dated 25.08.2014. The appellants writ petitioners have also asserted that their names did not reflect in the list of employees who had opted for the CPF Scheme and thus, by implication of the deeming clause under the Pension Scheme, they were required to be treated as employees under the Pension Scheme. However, to the utter surprise and shock of the appellants writ petitioners, a communication dated 01.08.2019 was issued whereby, payment of pension to the petitioners was stopped. The appellants writ petitioners assailed the said order by filing the writ petitions (supra) which have been rejected by the learned Single Bench by common order dated 04.01.2022 which is assailed in these intra court appeals.

3. Shri Vikas Balia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri S.S. Rathore, Advocate representing the appellants, vehemently and fervently urged that it was clearly indicated in the Pension Scheme that those employees, who did not submit the consent forms, would be deemed to have opted for the Pension Scheme. The respondents themselves accepted the position that the petitioners appellants had not submitted their consent forms to opt for the CPF Scheme and as a consequence, they were treated under the Pension Scheme. However, without any justification and in gross violation of the principles of the natural justice, the respondents passed the order dated 01.08.2019 stopping pension being paid to the petitioners as per their right under the Pension Scheme. Shri Vikas Balia further urged that the option form on which, the respondents placed reliance, was not prepared in accordance with the mandatory requirement of the Pension Scheme, 1991 and thus, the respondents were precluded from digging out the invalid option forms and stopping the pension being paid to the petitioners for almost two decades. Shri Balia submitted that the option to remain under the CPF Scheme was not submitted in the form provided under the scheme and thus also, the respondents acted illegally in resorting to the said option form after a