ORDER : Ashok Kumar, J. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for seeking a direction against the respondents to pay the amount of Contributory Provident Fund for the period from 02.06.1967 to 31.03.1977 along with interest @ of 24% per annum. The petitioner also prayed for re-fixing his pension amount after grant of said amount of CPF. 2. The brief facts in nutshell are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Electrician in Jaipur Milk Supply Scheme, Jaipur on 02.06.1967. The petitioner was confirmed as Plant Mechanic vide order dated 24.09.1973. 3. The Government of Rajasthan vide its letter dated 22.11.1976 invited option for transfer and permanent absorption of persons, who were working in different Milk Schemes, including Jaipur Milk Supply Scheme, Jaipur. The petitioner submitted his option to join the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. The State Government issued an order dated 30.03.1977 transferring the services of the petitioner along with other employees to the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. The petitioner was later on confirmed on the post of Foreman on 22.11.1978. He was transferred to Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. w.e.f. 27.07.1993 and the petitioner was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200 w.e.f. 17.07.1993. 4. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.1998 and as such, he retired from the post of Foreman. 5. The petitioner, on his retirement was paid the amount against insurance, unconsumed leave and gratuity for the period he rendered services i.e. 31 years. The petitioner was paid the amount of Contributory Provident Fund only for 21 years and 2 months and the amount of Contributory Provident Fund for the period from 02.06.1967 to 31.03.1977 was not paid. 6. The petitioner approached various authorities and requested that he was entitled for amount of Contributory Provident Fund from 02.06.1967 to 31.03.1977 as he had rendered the services with his erstwhile employer and there, his amount of CPF was deducted. The petitioner is also said to have served a legal notice and then approached this Court. 7. Mr. 6. The petitioner approached various authorities and requested that he was entitled for amount of Contributory Provident Fund from 02.06.1967 to 31.03.1977 as he had rendered the services with his erstwhile employer and there, his amount of CPF was deducted. The petitioner is also said to have served a legal notice and then approached this Court. 7. Mr. Alok Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the services rendered by the petitioner in Jaipur Dairy for 9 years and 10 months was under the Jaipur Milk Supply Scheme, which was under the direct control of Agricultural Department, Government of Rajasthan and as such, non-payment of Contributory Provident Fund amount is highly arbitrary and without any justification. Mr. Garg has further submitted that CPF is not a bounty but legal right of the petitioner and without any valid justification, such amount cannot be withheld by the employer. Mr. Garg has further submitted that the various correspondence, which has been communicated to different employer-respondents also reflect that petitioner had rendered the service for the disputed period but none of the respondent is owning the responsibility to pay the amount for the service rendered by the petitioner, wherein the deductions were made from his salary for Contributory Provident Fund. Mr. Garg has further submitted that in Contributory Provident Fund, employee as well as employer, both are required to contribute their share and after attaining the age of superannuation, the employee is required to receive the entire CPF amount. 8. There are five respondents in the instant petition i.e. (1) State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Agriculture Department, (2) Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd., (3) Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., (4) Director, State Insurance and Provident Fund Department and (5) The Provident Fund Commissioner. The learned counsel for all the respondents have disowned the liability to pay the amount in one way or another. The Agricultural Department has taken the stand that erstwhile services of the petitioner rendered in Jaipur Milk Supply Scheme were under the control of Agricultural Department of State of Rajasthan and as such, if any deduction had been made of the Contributory Provident Fund, the same must be lying with the Agricultural Department. 9. The Agricultural Department has taken the stand that erstwhile services of the petitioner rendered in Jaipur Milk Supply Scheme were under the control of Agricultural Department of State of Rajasthan and as such, if any deduction had been made of the Contributory Provident Fund, the same must be lying with the Agricultural Department. 9. The Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. has taken the stand that services of the petitioner were transferred to Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh and as such, Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh is responsible for payment of any amount if it is due. 10. Mr. Achintya Kaushik, Advocate appearing for Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh has also denied the claim of the petitioner and he submits that as per the terms of absorption, the petitioner became their employee w.e.f. 01.04.1977 and prayer of the petitioner that whatever contribution was made by the petitioner, the same cannot be claimed from Jaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh. Mr. Achintya further submits that terms of absorption as placed on record, letter dated 22.11.1976 (Annex.3), provides in Clause 5(73) that whatever amount was deducted prior to absorption of the petitioner, the same was required to be transferred in the account of the petitioner and he was to withdraw the same but the liability was not transferred to Jaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh. 11. The stand of the State Insurance & Provident Fund Department has been that they do not deal with the employees who were working in Dairy Department and they are concerned with only few departments of the State Government. Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate submits that they never received any amount from the employer and as such, it is not the duty of the State Insurance & Provident Fund Department to give any amount to the petitioner. 12. The stand of the Provident Fund Commissioner has been that the petitioner was a government employee for the period he rendered his services from 02.06.1967 to 31.03.1977 and as such, the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 do not apply to the government services and further, it has been asserted that the petitioner never approached them, as such, he is not entitled for relief. 13. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record. 14. Provisions Act, 1952 do not apply to the government services and further, it has been asserted that the petitioner never approached them, as such, he is not entitled for relief. 13. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record. 14. In the opinion of the Court, once the deductions have been made from the salary of the petitioner and he has deposited his contribution towards Contributory Provident Fund, the claim of the petitioner cannot be denied. The petitioner while working with his previous employer was absorbed as per Scheme of the Government with Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. It was the duty of the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. to seek all the information and complete details and money being transferred for making payment to the employee concerned. The petitioner once has been absorbed and employed till his superannuation with the respondent-Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. and later on, transferred to Japuir Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh, the respondent No. 2, cannot disown the liability of making payment. It is internal arrangement between the previous employer and the new employer i.e. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. as how the scheme is to be implemented Once, the employee has opted and absorbed, and continued in service, his contribution which has been deducted and deposited, cannot be retained by any of the employer. The Court finds that for the purpose of gratuity, even the entire 31 years of service is taken into account i.e. from 02.06.1967 till his superannuation in 1998, no departure can be made in calculating the period of total service rendered for the purpose of making payment towards Contributory Provident Fund. 15. The Court finds that the order of State Government Annex.3 also provided in Clause-5(H) that the amount which has been deducted, the same amount would be transferred in the account of the employee and in case, he resigns or complete 55 years of service and does not want to continue, in such eventuality, the amount was to be refunded. Once, the petitioner has uninterruptedly continued/completed his services from the initial date of appointment and later on, absorbed, the respondents cannot disown the liability to pay the amount, which has been deducted from 02.06.1967 to 31.03.1977. 16. The stand of the respondents which has been taken is quite strange. Once, the petitioner has uninterruptedly continued/completed his services from the initial date of appointment and later on, absorbed, the respondents cannot disown the liability to pay the amount, which has been deducted from 02.06.1967 to 31.03.1977. 16. The stand of the respondents which has been taken is quite strange. All the respondents by filing separate reply, in one way or another, are passing on the buck to each other and the claim of the petitioner is also being defected on technical grounds like not making Animal Husbandry Department as a party in the writ petition, the Court finds that the service benefits which accrue to government servant/an employee, cannot be withheld by the employer on spacious grounds. 17. The writ petition deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed. The respondents No. 2 & 3 are directed to seek necessary information and the details of amount being deposited by the petitioner and his previous employer and after collecting the same, the benefits are required to be given to the petitioner. The period from 02.06.1967 to 31.03.1977 for the purpose of 30 payment of Contributory Provident Fund will be considered for all purposes and all the benefits will be released to the petitioner within a period of two months from receipt of the copy of this order. No order as to costs.