JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellants-non-petitioners in SBCWP No.2063/2003 are aggrieved against the judgment of the Single Bench dated 26.8.2008 by which the writ petition of the respondent-petitioner was allowed and the order Annex- 9 dated 27.5.2003 was quashed and it has been held that petitioner is entitled to receive pension and other retiral benefits as per his option. The respondents were directed to grant the pensionary benefit to the petitioner with effect from the date of the retirement in accordance with law and pay the arrears of pension within a period of three months from the date of submission of the certified copy of the order passed by the Single Bench. 3. As per the facts, the pension scheme was formulated and employees of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board who were members of the CPF were given opportunity to opt for pension scheme and for that not only once but number of times, notices were issued by the respondent-department whereby employees were asked to submit their option for pension scheme. For taking benefit, the employees were required to submit their request to the competent authority by 31st March, 1996. The relevant notice which was given to the employees is dated 8th May, 1995 and it provides that the option be exercised within the stipulated period of time and further duty was cast upon the employee that it reaches in the office of the Controller of Accounts (P&F), RSEB, Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur-5 and that he obtains acknowledgment thereof. 4. The petitioner's contention is that he submitted option on 29th March, 1996 before the Superintending Engineer, who forwarded his case by making endorsement on that request letter, copy of which has been placed on record as Annex.1. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was the duty of the employee to see that the request letter must reach to the office of the Controller of Accounts (P&F), RSEB, Jaipur in time. According to him, the learned Single Judge has committed error of law by observing that if the delay was caused by the department itself in not processing the option letter of the petitioner-respondent then the petitioner cannot be penalized. 6. We considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant document placed on record. 7. According to him, the learned Single Judge has committed error of law by observing that if the delay was caused by the department itself in not processing the option letter of the petitioner-respondent then the petitioner cannot be penalized. 6. We considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant document placed on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the Superintending Engineer concerned whose endorsement is on Annex.1 has not denied that he did not receive the request of the petitioner and he did not forward it to the competent authority. Further more is that the petitioner being employee and he could not have compelled the Superintending Engineer or the department to send the request letter to the Controller of Accounts on or before particular date. When the circular was issued by the department itself then all the concerned persons/officers of the department were under legal obligation to see that it be complied with in time to the extent, the responsibility of which lies upon the officers at various stages. 8. In view of the above reasons, once the option was submitted by the petitioner-respondent in time and was entertained by the Superintending Engineer and that fact has not been denied by Superintending Engineer concerned, then we do not find that the learned Single Judge has committed any wrong by directing the appellants to grant all benefits as per option exercised by the writ petitioner.There is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******