JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan J. By medium of this writ petition, the petitioner has claimed the following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned orders Annexure P-20 whereby the respondent have rejected the claim of the petitioner to submit the option to switch over to the Pension Scheme introduced vide Notification dated 1-1-1997 Annexure P-14 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner humbly prays that the Respondent may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to submit the option as per the provisions of Rule 1.9 of the Pension Rules. The respondent may kindly be directed to grant the permission to the petitioner to avail of the benefits of pension as per the aforesaid Notification. (ii) That the Respondent may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to refund the share of C.P.F. contribution paid by the University to him along with the interest. IN the alternative the aforesaid retirement benefits may kindly be ordered to be adjusted against the arrears of consolidated pension due to the Petitioner. (iii) That the Respondent may kindly be directed to allow the benefit of combined service rendered by the Petitioner under the Government of Himachal Pradesh and in the Respondent University w.e.f. 16-2-1955 to 28-02-1991 and convert the Pro-rata Pension into superannuation Pension as per the petitioner has been absorbed in the Respondent University with due permission of the Government Annexure P-2. (iv) That the Respondent may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to deposit the Pro-rata retirement benefits with interest from the date of receipt till the date of deposit under Rule 1.11(ii) of pension rules. In the alternative the aforesaid retirement benefits may kindly be ordered to be adjusted against the arrears of consolidated pension due to the Petitioner. (v) That the Respondent may kindly be directed to consolidate the Pension of the petitioner w.e.f. 1-1-1996 and 1-1-2006 respectively after taking into account the pay in the U.G.C./ICRC Scales Annexure P-39 & P-41 admissible to the petitioner as he retired from service of the University as Senior Entomologist /Professor and Head of the Department of Entomology.” 2. In brief the case of the petitioner is that he served the University from 17.2.1955 till 28.2.1991 in different capacities and after retirement he settled at his native village in Uttar Pradesh. In brief the case of the petitioner is that he served the University from 17.2.1955 till 28.2.1991 in different capacities and after retirement he settled at his native village in Uttar Pradesh. In the year 1998 he met with a severe car accident and sustained grievous injuries, for which he was operated upon in AIMS, New Delhi. In August, 2009, the petitioner happened to visit Mashobra, where he met the Chief Scientist, who disclosed that the University has introduced a Pension Scheme for its employees w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The petitioner thereafter made repeated representations, which ultimately came to be rejected by the respondent vide order dated 11th March, 2010, constraining the petitioner to approach this Court. 3. Indisputably, the claim of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that in terms of the Pension Scheme he had failed to exercise the option within three months from the date of its notification i.e. 1.1.1997 and also that the petitioner had not made any formal request for a considerable long time of 13 years. 4. In reply to the petition, the respondent-University has again reiterated its stand as set out in the order of rejection dated 11th March, 2010 (supra). Apart there from, it has also been claimed that when the Pension Scheme had been notified on 1.1.1997, a copy of notification regarding implementation of Pension Scheme was sent to all the retirees including the petitioner vide dispatch No. 2357 dated 11.1.1997 and therefore, the petitioner could not feign ignorance regarding the Scheme. 5. To rebut such averments, the petitioner has filed rejoinder, wherein it has been specifically stated that the dispatch register does not specify as to what was actually sent to the petitioner and as per procedure the dispatch register should invariably contain the subject in brief of the letter sent to the addressee. Apart from that it has been claimed that the petitioner had moved various applications under Right to Information Act to the respondents and vide application dated 24th May, 2010 the petitioner had specifically requested the respondent No. 1 to provide him the copy of letter vide which the petitioner was allowed to have been informed regarding the introduction of the Pension Scheme. The respondent while replying to the aforesaid communication vide letter dated 10th August, 2010, 1st September, 2010, 10th September, 2010 had supplied certain information, but could not supply any information whereby the petitioner had actually been informed regarding the introduction of such scheme. 6. The respondents have not controverted these averments by filing any counter affidavit, therefore, it is amply clear that the petitioner was never informed regarding introduction of the Pension Scheme or else there was no reason as to why the petitioner would not opt for the Pension Scheme, which was more advantageous to him. Even during the course of arguments, the respondent was unable to satisfactorily point out any material on record whereby it could be established that the petitioner infact had been informed regarding the introduction of the Scheme and calling upon him to exercise his option within the stipulated period. Notably, it is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner is not entitled to pension and the contest is limited to delay alone. 7. Whenever an employer introduces the pension scheme or makes the scheme for employees who have retired and gives them an opportunity to exercise option, it is incumbent upon the employer to ensure that the circulars/instructions issued for that purpose should either be communicated to the retirees or made known to them by some reasonable mode. The employees like the petitioner who have settled at far and distinct place after retirement are not expected to frequently travel from their native places to the University to know about the additional benefits, if any extended by the University. Rather it is the duty of the employer to adopt a suitable mechanism for communicating the decision to the retired employees so as to enable them to exercise option. This was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Calcutta Port Trust and others Vs. Anadi Kumar Das and others, (2014) 3 SCC 617 and it is apt to quote the following observations:- “23. We would like to observe that whenever an employer introduces the pension scheme or makes the same applicable to retired employees and gives them opportunity to exercise option, the circulars/instructions issued for that purpose should either be communicated to the retires or made known to them by some reasonable mode. We would like to observe that whenever an employer introduces the pension scheme or makes the same applicable to retired employees and gives them opportunity to exercise option, the circulars/instructions issued for that purpose should either be communicated to the retires or made known to them by some reasonable mode. Mere display of such notice/instructions on the noticeboard of the head office cannot be treated as an intimation thereof to the retired employees/officers. The employer cannot presume that all the retirees have settled in the city where the head office is located. If the employees belong to the services of the Central Government or its agencies/instrumentalities, they are likely to settle in their native places which may be far away from the seat of the Government or head office of the establishment or organization. The retirees are not expected to frequently travel from their native places to the seat of the Government or head office to know about additional benefits, if any, extended by the Government or their establishment/organization and it is the duty of the employer to adopt a suitable mechanism for communicating the decision to the retired employees so as to enable them to exercise option. This could be done either by publishing a notice in the newspaper about which the retirees are told at the time of their retirement or by sending copies of the circulars/instructions to the retirees or by sending a copy thereof to the association of the employees and/or officers with a direction to them to circulate the same among the retirees concerned. By taking advantage of the modern technology, the employer can also display the circulars/instructions on a designated website about which prior information is made available to the employees at the time of their retirement. If one of these modes is not adopted, the retired employees can legitimately complain that they have been denied right to exercise the option and can seek intervention of the court. 24. If an aggrieved retiree seeks intervention of the court for issue of a direction to the employer to give him opportunity to exercise option to switch over from one scheme to the other, the employer can produce the particular scheme, etc. The employer can also show that even though the scheme, etc. had not been communicated to the employee concerned in person, he was aware of the same. The employer can also show that even though the scheme, etc. had not been communicated to the employee concerned in person, he was aware of the same. Each such case will have to be decided by the competent court keeping in view the pleadings and evidence produced by the parties and it cannot be laid down as a general rule that each and every circular/instruction issued by the employer giving additional monetary benefits to the retired employees must be published in the newspapers and that in the absence of such publication or personal communication to the retired employee would entitle him to seek intervention of the court after the lapse of many years.” 8. The learned counsel for the respondent would then contend that before the case of the petitioner can be considered for grant of pensionary benefits under the Pension Scheme, he is required to deposit the entire contributory provident fund received by him under the CPF Scheme. I am afraid that such plea is not available to the respondents, since the amount received by the petitioner under the CPF scheme can be adjusted against the benefits now accruing to him as per this judgment. This issue in so far as the respondent is concerned, in fact is no longer res integra, in view of the judgment delivered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in B.C. Katoch Vs. H.P. Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, 2010 (2) Him. L.R. 838. The relevant portion whereof reads as follows:- “5. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner is granted benefit of the aforesaid Pension Scheme issued by the respondent University, vide notification dated 1.1.1997, Annexure A/1 and the Rules framed thereunder, vide Annexure A/2. The respondent-University is directed to process the pension case of the petitioner in the light of this judgment and to release the consequential financial benefits to him under the said Scheme and the Rules framed thereunder with effect from 1.1.1986, within a period of three months from today. It is made clear that the amount of the benefits already received by the petitioner under the CPF Scheme shall be liable to be adjusted against the benefits accruing to him as per this judgment.” 9. It is made clear that the amount of the benefits already received by the petitioner under the CPF Scheme shall be liable to be adjusted against the benefits accruing to him as per this judgment.” 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent- University is directed to process the pension case of the petitioner and release the consequential financial benefits to him under the Scheme and Rules, if any framed thereunder w.e.f. 1.3.1991, within a period of three months from today. It is made clear that the amount of benefits already received by the petitioner under the CPF Scheme shall be liable to be adjusted against the benefits accruing to him as per this judgment. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. The pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.