JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner has retired on attaining age of superannuation on 31.01.1992 while holding post of Driver in Rajasthan State Social Welfare Board ("Board"). He sent letter dated 27.01.05 followed by another on 13.04.05 for grant of benefit of pension Scheme. Both the letters were treated as writ petitions (1) CWP 1974/05 & (2) CWP 3577/05 vide orders dated 06.04.05 & dated 26.04.05 respectively whereby notices were Issued to respondent Board through its Secretary. In both the petitions, since issue is one and the same raised by petitioner, hence are being disposed of by common order. 2. Petitioner joined service as Driver and on attaining age of superannuation retired from service of respondent Board on 31.01.92 and at the time of his retirement, Contributory Provident Fund ('CPF') Scheme, was in vogue and on retirement took all his benefits under PF scheme and after almost 13 years of his retirement, he sent letter to this Court with the grievance that after more than a decade, terminal benefits, particularly pension has not been paid to him so far despite the fact that 50% share is agreed to be reimbursed by Central Social Welfare Board ("Central Board"). 3. However, Counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that all benefits under CPF scheme made available have been paid to him on his retirement. Counsel submits that once Central Board has agreed to pay 50% of its share, as per memorandum of understanding ("MOU"), rest 50% has to be borne out by State Government but without any reasonable justification, State Govt. has not inclined to pay its share. Counsel submits that in almost all States except few including Rajasthan, have accepted to pay their 50% share-in the absence of benevolence, pension Scheme has not been introduced and there is no justification came forward from the State Govt. as to why Scheme has not been given effect to; as such action of State Govt. in failing to discharge its duties of introducing of pension scheme being made available to employees of State Board is wholly arbitrary and in clear violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. Per contra, Counsel for respondent-Board submits that Central Board has agreed to pay its 50% share but State Board has sent letter to State Government to grant 50% of its share-in absence whereof pension scheme could not have been introduced. 4. Per contra, Counsel for respondent-Board submits that Central Board has agreed to pay its 50% share but State Board has sent letter to State Government to grant 50% of its share-in absence whereof pension scheme could not have been introduced. However, Counsel for State submits that there, is already CPF Scheme Invoked which is an alternative scheme available to retired personnel of the State Board-under which all benefits have already been received by petitioner-this fact has not been disclosed by petitioner while sending his letter to this Court and once he has accepted all his dues including benefits available under CPF scheme which was in vogue at the time of his retirement, he cannot now be permitted after inordinate delay for calling upon State Government to release its 50% share and introduce pension scheme even in regard to employees who have retired long back like petitioner. That apart, State Government has introduced Contributory Pension Scheme 2004 which is almost equitable with CPF Scheme, and no mandamus can be issued to State Government to introduce pension retrospective particularly when benefit under CPF scheme has already been availed. 5. I have considered contention of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance pondered over material brought on record. Indisputably, petitioner on. his retirement from service after attaining age of superannuation on 31.01.1992 took all of his benefits under CPF Scheme prevalent at that time and gave option after five years for alternative pension scheme introduced by Central Board and after almost 13 years, raised dispute for his grievance in question. That apart, State Government has introduced contributory pension rules, 2004 for its employees which is almost equitable with CPF Scheme and as per Rule 12 of Central Social Welfare Board Rules governing composition & function of State Board, the Central Board granted the amount to the State Board and the State Government granted first installment equal to Central Government for the year 2006-07 including share of Central Provident Fund. Central Board introduced pension scheme for employees of respective State Board from 01.04.1979 with the condition that 50% of its share has to be borne by State Government but ultimate fact remains that State Govt. has not agreed to pay 50% of its share to make employees granted of pensionary benefits. Central Board introduced pension scheme for employees of respective State Board from 01.04.1979 with the condition that 50% of its share has to be borne by State Government but ultimate fact remains that State Govt. has not agreed to pay 50% of its share to make employees granted of pensionary benefits. Numerous documents have been placed on record to show that letter after letters were sent by Central Board to the State Government but finally has not agreed to but in view of the affidavit filed by respondent State that new Contributory Pension Scheme has been introduced and prior to it, CPF Scheme was available which is also one of alternative scheme in lieu of pension in the form of terminal benefits under which benefit has already been received by petitioner after his retirement on 31.01.1992, itself which in no manner can now be considered for grant of pension, which has not yet been introduced and made available since the Government has not agreed to pay its 50% contribution as proposed by Central Board. 6. Submission made by Counsel for the petitioner that in other States, pension scheme has been introduced can certainly be relevant consideration for State of Rajasthan also to take note but once it has not been accepted and benefit under CPF Scheme has been accepted and that apart, when alternative scheme like Contributory Pension Scheme, 2004 is made available and contributory pension has been later on introduced which is benevolent to employees in general, I do not find any justification to Issue any further direction as sought for.Consequently, both the letter petitions fails and are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Both Letter Petitions Dismissed. *******