Judgment K.S. Rathore, J.-This petition is filed by Rajasthan Rajya Sthantrit Karamchari Kalyan Parishad. The petitioner is a body of retired employees, who were erstwhile Government Servant and the list of members of the petitioner interested in this writ petition is annexed alongwith the writ petition as Schedule A/1. 2. As per Schedule A/1 only 12 persons are interested in this writ petition. All the members of the petitioner whose names are given in the Schedule A/1 were Government employees and were subsequently transferred to various Universities and other Public Undertakings within the State of Rajasthan. They all had put in more than 10 years but less than 25 years of service except K.D. Ramdeo, who has rendered less than 10 years of service under the Government of Rajasthan at the time of their transfer to the university. Conditions of their transfer were incorporate in the order issued by the Education Department and Agriculture Department on 07.07.1962, 27.06.1964 and 07.08.1963 by Agriculture Department. 3. All the transferred employees were given option either of payment of pension and gratuity on attaining the age of 55 years or payment of Provident Fund Contribution for service put under the Government. The Provident Fund Contribution was to be credited as opening balance in the Employees Provident Fund Account in the University etc. 4. A group of erstwhile Government servants, who were members of the Jodhpur Provident Fund approached to this Court for giving option for pension. The writ petition was accepted by the Single Judge and the Division Bench upheld the decision of the Single Judge and the petition for leave to appeal filed by the Government was also dismissed. 5. Pursuant to the decision of this Court the Government issued a Circular dated 110.1987. Although the Government had issued memorandum dated 110.1987 in compliance of the Court’s order, it has been totally belying to similarly situated employees, who were absorbed in other Universities, Public Sector corporations and Government Undertakings. 6. The Government had issued similar instructions giving the opportunity of option to other employees, who were transferred after having rendered Government service for more than 10 years but less than 25 years. 7. The pensionary benefit was denied to the members of the petitioner parishad and similarly situated persons were given option of pension. 6. The Government had issued similar instructions giving the opportunity of option to other employees, who were transferred after having rendered Government service for more than 10 years but less than 25 years. 7. The pensionary benefit was denied to the members of the petitioner parishad and similarly situated persons were given option of pension. For this purpose by way of an application for permission for placing document on record certain documents has been placed to show that other similarly situated persons were given option of pension. 8. The petitioner also placed an order dated 22.05.1993 by which the Government of Rajasthan granted family pension to the widows of the Government servant, who were transferred and absorbed in the services of autonomous bodies/public sector corporations. 9. They also placed order of few persons, who were earlier serving in the Education Department and later on absorbed in the University of Rajasthan namely S.P. Verma, Ex.Professor, G.C. Patni, Professor Head of Maths Department, M.C. Gupta, Ex.Head of Maths, B.D. Tyagi, Ex.Professor and R.C. Vyas, Ex. Lecturer, Mathematics. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of their submissions placed reliance on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 10.08.1998 passed in the case of R.S.E.B. vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Mandle Seva Nirvat Karamchari Sangh & Ors., the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Kamla, reported in WLR 1991 (S) Raj. 508 and the Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in the case of Pukh Raj Singhvi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3946/1994). 11. Per contra learned Addl. Advocate General Mr. Mohd. Rafiq submits that the members of the petitioner Parishad are not entitled for pensionary benefits. The Government has issued sanction on 07.07.1962 for placing the services of officers on deputation with the Universities of the State. As per Condition No. 8 of the aforesaid sanction persons, who had put in less than 25 years of service were given option to opt for either proportionate pension for the period of service rendered in the Government or to remain member of the CPF scheme. 12. Those who opted for pension scheme, pension was allowed to be drawn on their attaining the age of 55 years. 12. Those who opted for pension scheme, pension was allowed to be drawn on their attaining the age of 55 years. It was also made clear at Condition No. 9 that the concession at Condition No. 8 would be made available when the officers are permanently absorbed in the University. 13. Learned AAG Mr. Rafiq further submits that pursuant to the order dated 24.04.1992 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 2263 67/92, Shri Giriraj Prasad & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., Government of Rajasthan had issued the order on 210.1992 clarifying the admissibility of the proportionate pension and temporary increase (dearness relief) in such cases from the date of absorption of the officers in universities, instead of on their attaining the age of 55 years. Thus, the Government order dated 210.1992 merely clarifying the admissibility of proportionate pension and T.I. to those Government employees, who had already opted for pension under Government sanction dated 07.07.1962. 14. The petitioners cannot take advantage of the Circular dated 110.1987 as this orcer has been issued in compliance of the Judgment and such order cannot be subject to challenge. He further submits that in clarification application it was clarified by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 31.03.1994 that the order of S.L.P. Dated 11.08.1987 is confined only to those retired CPF holders of the State of Rajasthan, who had already exercised their option for switching over to the pension pursuant to the State Government’s Circular dated 110.1987 and the benefit was extended to those CPF retirees only, who have covered by Circular dated 110.1987 and to none else. 15. Having heard rival submissions of the respective parties and after careful perusal of the material available on the record as well as the Judgment s referred before me and I also perused the documents placed by the petitioners alongwith the application. 16. It is not disputed that the members of the petitioner Parishad are earlier was the employee of the Education Department (State) and subsequently they were absorbed in the Universities, Public Sector Corporations and Undertakings. It is also not disputed that all were taken a benefit of Contributory Provident Fund and received the amount. Upon perusal of the Judgment of R.S.E.B. vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Mandle Seva Nirvat Karamchari Sangh & Ors. It is also not disputed that all were taken a benefit of Contributory Provident Fund and received the amount. Upon perusal of the Judgment of R.S.E.B. vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Mandle Seva Nirvat Karamchari Sangh & Ors. (Supra), referred before me, the Division Bench has observed that the employees whose services were transferred to the Board there were some employees, who were in the employment of the erstwhile Jodhpur State and who were the members of the Jodhpur State Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, some of them had retired and had received full and final payment of Provident Fund under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. Later on these employees and their association started claiming that they were entitled to opt for pension scheme in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. This Court in the writ petition Nos. 118/1986, 119/1986, 120/1986 and 1823/1987 held that employees, who had retired on 312.1977, 30.11.1983 and 30.06.1986 were given the benefit of pension. 17. After the decision of the Supreme Court, the State Government issued a memorandum on 110.1987. By this memorandum the State Government had allowed those employees, who had retired from services after 01.04.1951 from a post under the Government availing benefits under the Jodhpur State Provident Fund/Rules, who had not opted for Pension Rules on affording chances from time to time after 01.04.1951 to opt for Pension Rules within three months from the date of the notification. 18. The Division Bench has decided this question whether the employees of E&M Department of the Government, who were not covered by Jodhpur CPF Scheme, who became employees of the Board would be entitled to exercise option for pensionary benefits or not. The answer was that the employees/Ex.employees of the Board, who were members of the erstwhile Jodhpur State CPF Scheme are entitled to opt for pensionary benefits irrespective of whether they had filed petitions or not. It was also held that the employees, who were not covered by above but, who were members of E & M Department CPF Scheme are entitled to exercise option for grant of pensionary benefits in lieu of CPF Scheme at par with the employees similarly situated, who continued in E & M Department and, who were given option by the Government before absorption of the deputationist in Board service. 19. 19. I also perused clarification made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order in the following terms:-“It is clarified that the order of this Court dated 11.08.1987 in SLP No. 7192/1987 was confined only to those retired CPF holders of the State of Rajasthan, who had already exercised their option for switching over to the pension pursuant to the State Government’s Circular dated 110.1987.” 20. The petitioners’ case is not covered by the Condition No. 1 as held by the Division Bench and the case of the petitioners are covered by Condition No. 2. Petitioners, case is also not covered by erstwhile Jodhpur State CPF Scheme. They are entitled to exercise for grant of pensionary benefits in lieu of CPF Scheme at par with the employees similarly situated, who continued in the E & M Department and, who were given option by the Government before absorption of the deputationist in the Board services. 21. Applying the similar principle the members of the petitioner Parishad are also entitled to give their option since their option were never invited pursuant to the Circular dated 110.1987 as it is settled principle of law and held in the case of Smt. Rukma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2000 (3) WLC 102 , wherein the Court observed, ‘it is settled law that in case of pension, the cause of action is recurring and, therefore, there is no question of any delay or latches.” 22. The clarification, which was given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the instant case as the clarification, which was given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is with relation to the members of the employees, who were confined only to those retired CPF holders of the State of Rajasthan, who had already exercised their option for switching over to the pension pursuant to the State Government’s circular. 23. Since, the members of the petitioner parishad were transferred to the Universities and other Undertakings and ceased to be in Government service and permanently absorbed in the Universities till they attained the age of 55 years. 24. 23. Since, the members of the petitioner parishad were transferred to the Universities and other Undertakings and ceased to be in Government service and permanently absorbed in the Universities till they attained the age of 55 years. 24. The respondents have not uttered a single word with relation to the illustration and the orders, which are submitted by the petitioners alongwith the application showing that S.P. Verma, G.C. Patni, M.C. Gupta, P.L. Bhargava and B.D. Tiagi, who were earlier in the Government service and later on absorbed in the Rajasthan University and Late Shri R.C. Vyas and Late Shri J.K. Sindhi were also members of the Government service and absorbed in the Jodhpur University. 25. The petitioners are able to establish this fact that the members of the petitioner Parishad also stand at similarly situated and earlier they all were Government servant and absorbed in the University and other Corporations and Undertakings. They have been discriminated to extend the pensionary benefits as their option were never called from them and whereas these persons were absorbed in the University and given pensionary benefits even after receipt of amount of CPF and that was ordered to be adjusted in the amount, which is payable as pension. 26. The respondents have not given any reply to this effect and has not able to say as to how these persons were given pensionary benefits and as to how the members of petitioner Parishad are denied for the same. 27. In such circumstances, I deem it proper to allow the writ petition and direct the respondents that pursuant to the Circular dated 110.1987 examine the case of the petitioners and grant the benefit of the pension and the amount already received by the petitioners under the Contributory Provident Fund may be adjusted for the purposes of making the payment of pension. 28. As informed by learned Counsel for the petitioners that Shri R.P. Srivastava died during the pendency of the writ petition and his wife Smt. Rajeshwari Srivastava was brought on record as legal representative, in such eventuality Smt. Rajeshwari Srivastava being wife of Late Shri R.P. Srivastava is entitled to receive the family pension. 28. As informed by learned Counsel for the petitioners that Shri R.P. Srivastava died during the pendency of the writ petition and his wife Smt. Rajeshwari Srivastava was brought on record as legal representative, in such eventuality Smt. Rajeshwari Srivastava being wife of Late Shri R.P. Srivastava is entitled to receive the family pension. Whereas late Shri K.D. Ramdeo, who also died during the pendency of the writ petition and Smt. Ratan Kaur Ramdeo was brought on record as legal representative, as informed by learned Counsel for the petitioners that late Shri K.D. Ramdeo has not completed 10 years of services, thus she is not entitled for the pension. But in lieu of Rule 256, she is entitled to get the gratuity in lieu of pension. 29. With these observations, the writ petition stands allowed and the respondents are directed to undertake the exercise of examining the cases of the members of the petitioner Parishad in the light of the observations made herein above and shall pass appropriate order expeditiously but not later than three months. It is made clear that the members of the petitioner Parishad are only entitled to get pensionary benefits from the date of absorption in the respective universities, public sector corporations and Undertakings. 30. List of the members of the petitioner Parishad as furnished by the petitioner Parishad with details be appended alongwith this Judgment and be treated as a part of this Judgment for adherence.