JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27/5/2003 whereby the respondents have refused to permit the petitioner to opt for the pension scheme promultaged by the respondents for their employees w.e.f. 1/4/1989. 2. Shri Vigyan Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner was a substantive employee of the respondent-Corporation and he was entitled to get pension in terms of RSRTC Employees Pension Regulations, 1989 (for short, "Pension Regulations of 1989") and GPF Rules, 1989 which was notified vide notification dated 2/1/1990. It so happened that petitioner was on deptuation with the police department from 1986 to 1997. The employees were required to indicate about the necessity for pensionary benefits of CPF. Clause (iii) of the notification however provides that if no such option is furnished within the stipulated time then, Pension Rules, 1989 and GPF Rules, 1989 would mutatus mutandi apply to the employee and such employee shall be deemed to have automatically opted for Pension and GPF under the said Rules. Learned counsel also referred to the subsequent Circular issued by the respondents on 8/2/1992 clause (ii) of which, also provides to the same effect. 3. Shri Mukesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondents contested the writ petition and submitted that amended notification dated 8/2/1992 has to be read in its entirety and not in part. According to clause (ii) of the said Circular, all other employees who were on deputation or on leave or under suspension were specifically required to submit their option within a period of 60 days. Even though petitioner was on deputation, he was required to submit his option within 60 days. The fact about exercise for such option was given wide publicity in the newspapers but the petitioner submitted the option after his repretiation to the respondents belatedly on 11/4/2003 (Annexure-3). It was submitted that subsequently also, respondents have issued one more notification on 15/6/1996, calling for option. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that in a notification dated 2/1/1990 as also the amended notification dated 8/2/1992, though requirement of exercising option within 90 days and 60 days respectively, has been given but two separate clauses i.e. clause (i) and (ii) in both the notifications deal with two different categories of employees. While clause (i) refers to the employees who are in active service with the respondent-Corporation whereas clause (ii) pertains to the employees who are on leave or on deputation or under suspension. Clause (i) provides that those who are on deputation/leave or under suspension on 2/1/1990, have to submit option within 90 days from the relevant date whereas clause (ii) of the notification dated 8/2/1992 provides that such an option shall be submitted within 60 days from the date of repatriation. The contention that this clause should be read in isolation, by ignoring other clauses, cannot be accepted because for the employees who are in active service with the respondents, clause (i) provides that they ought to submit their option within 90 days according to notification dated 2/1/1990 and within 60 days according to clause (ii) of notification dated 8/2/1992. But, clause (iii) is common in both the notifications, which provides that in the event of failure of an employee to submit option within the time prescribed, provisions of Pension Regulations of 1989 and GPF Rules, 1989 shall be deemed to have been applied to the employee and this clause does not make any exception for the employees who are on deputation. 5. The resultant effect would be that those in active service of the respondents, upon failure to exercise the option within the time prescribed, are deemed to have opted for pension. A different interpretation cannot be taken for such of the employees who are on deputation and fail to exercise the option within the time so prescribed. Merely because petitioner after resuming duties on his repatriation has submitted the application, would not make the aforesaid clause (iii) inapplicable to his case. Such a facility has been given to the employees only in order to ensure that if they consider that benefits payable to them under the CPF Scheme are more favourable, they can immediately after resuming their duties in the Corporation within the time prescribed opt for that but mere non-exercise of such option or delayed exercise of option, cannot defeat their right enshrined in clause (iii). 6. In the result, writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. 6. In the result, writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the case of the petitioner to have been covered under clause (iii) supra and accordingly, grant him pensionary benefits and other retrial due benefits w.e.f. 2/1/1990.Compliance of this order be made within three months from the date copy of this order is produced before the respondents.Writ Petition Partly Allowed. *******