Judgment 1. It appears that Annexure-7 which is supposed to contain the pending claims of the petitioner under various heads is a photo copy of the document written in hand. Such document should have been annexed after getting it typed. The Stamp Reporter should also have been more careful and should have pointed out defect that some of the Annexures are handwritten and typed copies have not been submitted. The Stamp Reporter must be careful in future. However, in view of the order proposed that petitioner should file representation before the Sugar Corporation raising all the claims contained in Annexure-7, the petitioner is being exempted from filing typed copy of said Annexure. 2. Heard the parties. 3. The main controversy requiring decision in this case appears to be whether petitioner who retired in February 1996 as a class III employee posted as a clerk or Weighment and Payment Officer in Lohat Sugar Factory, Darbhanga is entitled for pension under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 or not. 4. There is no doubt that petitioner retired from service in February 1996 and he was a member of Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 before the commencement of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 with effect from 16.11.1995. By the impugned order contained in Annexure-4 the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar, Patna has informed the petitioner regarding his claim for pension that the petitioner is not entitled to membership of pension fund because he executed option form to become member of the pension scheme on 27.8.1996 with effect from 1.2.1996 and such option was forwarded by management on 29.8.1996. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that the requirement of option in the case of petitioner has arisen only because he was wrongly not given the benefit of paragraph 6(b) of the 1995 Scheme and was paid the lump sum benefits under the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 after retirement. In such circumstances, petitioner gave his consent for being governed by Scheme of the 1995 and he is also willing to return the amount of withdrawal benefits received together with interest at the rate prescribed by paragraph 17(2) of the Scheme of 1995. In such circumstances, petitioner gave his consent for being governed by Scheme of the 1995 and he is also willing to return the amount of withdrawal benefits received together with interest at the rate prescribed by paragraph 17(2) of the Scheme of 1995. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, membership of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 is governed by paragraph 6 and as per sub-clause (b), the new Scheme of 1995 shall apply to every employee who has been a member of the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 before the commencement of aforesaid scheme from 16.11.1995. The requirement of option for getting membership of the Scheme of 1995 is only for those who are covered by subclause (c) and (d) of paragraph 6 of the Scheme which relate to those employees who had seized to be members of the 1971 Scheme before the commencement of the Scheme of 1995 or were never a member of the Scheme of 1971. 5. Learned counsel for the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner submits that the employer is required to file returns to show entitlement of different employees and the benefits of the Scheme are given as per the returns filed by the employer and on that basis petitioner was paid the lump sum benefits under the 1971 Scheme and he is not being treated as a member of the 1995 Scheme because he has exercised his option after his retirement. 6. This Court finds that benefit of membership of the Scheme of 1995 has to be governed by provisions in paragraph 6 of the Scheme and there is merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioners case is covered by sub-clause (b) of paragraph 6 as he was an employee covered by Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and continued in employment even at the time of commencement of the new Scheme of 1995 on 16.11.1995. In such a case paragraph 6 of the Scheme does not provide for exercising any option. 7. Thus, it is found that petitioner was wrongly not treated as a member of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 although he had to be treated as a member in view of provisions in paragraph 6(b) of the said Scheme. In such a case paragraph 6 of the Scheme does not provide for exercising any option. 7. Thus, it is found that petitioner was wrongly not treated as a member of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 although he had to be treated as a member in view of provisions in paragraph 6(b) of the said Scheme. He cannot be penalised for any fault of the employer which led to his being treated only as a member of the 1971 Scheme although he retired in February 1996. In such circumstances, it is necessary that the benefit withdrawn by the petitioner earlier should be returned by him along with interest indicated in paragraph 17(2) of the Scheme and only on restoration of equity by such return the authorities concerned will be liable to pay pension to the petitioner in accordance with Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. 8. This writ petition is thus disposed of with a direction that if petitioner deposits the withdrawn benefits along with necessary interest as may be calculated and demanded by respondent no. 4, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner within two months from the date of production/ communication of a copy of this order then the benefit of pension under the Scheme of 1995 shall be made available to him within a period of two months from the date of deposit of withdrawn benefits. In case petitioner does not deposit the lawful amount demanded from him in accordance with this order then he will not be entitled to receive the benefits of the Pension Scheme, 1995. 9. So far as petitioners claims as covered by Annexure-7 is concerned, petitioner is given liberty to file representation before the concerned authority of the Sugar Corporation who shall dispose of such representation in accordance with law at an early date and preferably within three months from the date of filing of such representation and anything found payable to the petitioner should be paid to him within a further period of one month thereafter. 10. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.