JUDGMENT : MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation challenging the order dated 9.4.2018, by which the review petition filed by the appellant-RSRTC seeking review of the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 27.10.2017 was dismissed. Also under challenge is the main judgment dated 27.10.2017. 2. The respondent-writ petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition inter alia on the premise that he was working with the appellant-RSRTC on the post of Conductor in the regular pay scale. He was suspended in the year 1995. When the respondent-writ petitioner was under suspension, the appellant-RSRTC introduced a scheme for pension under Corporation Employees Pension GPF and invited option from the existing employees for selecting either CPF Scheme or GPF Scheme. Such option was to be exercised from 15.6.1996 to 15.8.1996. According to the respondent-writ petitioner, he applied in favour of receiving the pension on the prescribed proforma 1(A) and submitted the same to the concerned authority. The appellant-RSRTC instead of accepting the option of the respondent, refused the same and advised that since he was under suspension, therefore, he should submit his option form within 30 days from the date of his reinstatement. Eventually, the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent were concluded and the disciplinary authority vide order dated 29.4.1997 terminated his services. The appellant-respondent filed application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for seeking approval of his termination. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties dismissed the application vide order dated 21.8.2004. Dissatisfied therewith, the appellant-RSRTC filed writ petition before this Court, which was dismissed by judgment dated 16.1.2008. The appellant-RSRTC then filed D.B. Special Appeal before the division bench, which too was dismissed by judgment dated 21.3.2013. Still not satisfied, the RSRTC filed SLP before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vide order dated 18.11.2013 dismissed the SLP. Copies of all the three orders have been placed on record. The RSRTC did not at any point of time after their approval application under Section 33(2)(b) was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur on 21.8.2004 and upto the time their SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 18.11.2013, passed the order of his reinstatement. Copies of all the three orders have been placed on record. The RSRTC did not at any point of time after their approval application under Section 33(2)(b) was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur on 21.8.2004 and upto the time their SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 18.11.2013, passed the order of his reinstatement. The date of birth of the respondent being December, 1950, he attained the age of 60 years i.e. the age of superannuation on 31.12.2010 and thus was taken to have retired from service on 31.12.2010. The RSRTC passed the order on 9.1.2014 in purported compliance of the judgment of the Industrial Tribunal dated 21.8.2004, vide which a sum of Rs. 4,23,202/- was paid to the respondent-writ petitioner. He filed application before the competent authority of the RSRTC on 29.1.2014 requesting them to grant further and other pensionary benefits to him. The RSRTC informed the writ petitioner by letter dated 30.4.2014 that he was not entitled to pension. Copy of the letter dated 11.4.2014 issued by the Accounts Officer (Pension) was also forwarded to him, in which it was opined that the petitioner was not entitled to pension as he did not submit the requisite option form within the stipulated time. It is in this context that the respondent approached this Court by filing the writ petition inter alia on the premise that since the RSRTC by letter dated 6.7.1996 conveyed to him that he could exercise his option within 30 days of his reinstatement and since he has not been formally reinstated, the RSRTC be directed to treat the writ petitioner as reinstated from the date of his suspension and grant him all the pensionary and other admissible benefits. Prayer was also made to quash and set aside the order dated 9.1.2014. 3. The writ petition was contested by the RSRTC contending that the charge sheet was served on the respondent-writ petition on 20.5.1995 for carrying 23 passengers without ticket and misbehavior while performing the duty of Conductor and he was suspended by order dated 19.5.1995. However, the enquiry could not be completed due to non-cooperation of the writ petitioner. In the meantime, the scheme for pension was introduced under Corporation Employees Pension GPF inviting options from 15.6.1996 to 15.8.1996. The same scheme came into force with effect from 1.4.1989. The option was required to be submitted on prescribed proforma. However, the enquiry could not be completed due to non-cooperation of the writ petitioner. In the meantime, the scheme for pension was introduced under Corporation Employees Pension GPF inviting options from 15.6.1996 to 15.8.1996. The same scheme came into force with effect from 1.4.1989. The option was required to be submitted on prescribed proforma. The Court issued order dated 2.1.1990 inviting options from the employees to either select CPF Scheme or GPF Scheme on the prescribed proforma within 90 days. Thereafter, the Corporation issued another order dated 8.2.1992 in partial modification of the earlier order providing that option shall have to be now submitted within 60 days. Yet another order was issued on 11.1.1993 in continuation of the earlier order, providing that this requirement of submitting the option would be necessary even for those governed by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Workers and Workshop Employees Standing Order 1965. In pursuance of the resolution of the Corporation No. 81/94 dated 16.12.1994 and as per the approval conveyed by the State Government vide letter dated 31.10.1995, Sub-Regulation (L) of Regulation 3 of the RSRTC Employees Pension Regulations, 1989 was amended. While this Regulation earlier provided that "an existing employee who does not exercise the option within the specified period of 90 days, shall be deemed to have exercised option in favour of the Pension and GPF Regulations". Now the amended Regulation 3(L) provided that "an existing employee, who does not exercise the final option in favour of Pension within the specified period of 90 days, shall continue to be regulated under the RSRTC CPF Regulation 1994." The amended Regulation came into force with effect from 1.4.1989. 4. The case of the RSRTC therefore was that the writ petitioner was mandatorily required to submit his option form if wanted to opt for pension under 1989 Regulations, but no such option form was ever submitted by him. It was contended that a sum of Rs. 4,23,202 have been paid to the writ petitioner in compliance of the order of the Tribunal passed under Section 33(c)(2). The case of the RSRTC also was that the petitioner has been on several occasions found guilty of misconduct and awarded various penalties by several orders. 5. It was contended that a sum of Rs. 4,23,202 have been paid to the writ petitioner in compliance of the order of the Tribunal passed under Section 33(c)(2). The case of the RSRTC also was that the petitioner has been on several occasions found guilty of misconduct and awarded various penalties by several orders. 5. When the matter was listed before the learned Single Judge on 14.7.2017, the Court took note of the objection of the RSRTC that Annexure-1 was a forged letter, having wrong dispatch number and date. The counsel for the RSRTC sought to produce the original file bearing the dispatch No. 335 dated 6.7.1996. He was directed to bring dispatch register of Jhalana Doongari Depot of the Corporation. Thereafter, the matter was finally heard on 2.8.2017 and judgment was reserved. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that, in fact, at the time of arguments, the original record containing the dispatch number was produced and handed over to the Court. The judgment was pronounced on 27.10.2017 and the original record was returned by the Court Master to the counsel for the appellant, yet the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment while allowing the writ petition has made an observation in para 9 of the impugned judgment that the original record of the petitioner was not produced before the Court and only photostat documents cannot be sufficient to assess forgery. The appellant therefore filed review petition to invite attention of the learned Single Judge over the fact that original record was, in fact, submitted. The learned Single Judge, however, rejected the review petition vide impugned order dated 9.4.2018. 7. Shri Kunal Kant Rawat, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in allowing the writ petition and rejecting the review petition. The learned Single Judge has taken note of para 9. While appellant-RSRTC has referred to only para 9 of the judgment, but in para 7 of the judgment, the learned Single Judge has clearly observed that the original letter dated 6.4.1996 was produced before the Court and original dispatch register of Jhalana Dungri Depot was also called and produced, but therein at dispatch No. 335, there is a letter dated 6.7.1996 addressed and sent to the Executive Officer relating to the petitioner, which pertains to the decision of the Court in some earlier litigation. Learned counsel for the respondents therefore submitted that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We are not inclined to countenance the submission that the learned Single Judge has not properly considered the original document submitted by the Corporation. In fact, in para 7 of the judgment dated 27.10.2017, the learned Single Judge has made particular reference to letter Annexure-1 and observed as under: 7. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Even otherwise the letter issued by the authorities mentions about the petitioner having submitted his option form. Respondents having produced the letter dated 6.7.1996 in original before the Court and the entire story has been set up to deny the claim. During the course of hearing, the original dispatch register of Jhalana Dungri Depot was called wherein at No. 335, there is a letter dated 6.7.1996 addressed and sent to the Executive Officer relating to the petitioner, which relates to the decision to the Court relating to some earlier litigation." 9. The aforesaid observation of para 7 shall have to be read along with what was observed in later part of para 9 where the learned Single Judge has given a specific finding "that the letter which has been sent by dispatch No. 335 was only the documents Annexure-R-11 and not Annexure-1 as both related to the petitioner. The original record of the petitioner was not produced before the Court and only photostat documents cannot be sufficient to assess forgery." 10. We have also perused letter dated 6.7.1996 (Annexure-1). This letter, which is typed written, appears to have been sent by dispatch No. 335 of Jhalana Doongri Depot on 6.7.1996 conveying that the petitioner shall be required to submit his option within 30 days of his reinstatement. The respondent-Corporation sought to contend before the Court that in fact Annexure-R/11 was also a letter dated 6.7.1996, which was sent by dispatch No. 335. Both the letters have dispatch No. 335 and both are dated 6.7.1996. Both have been issued under the signature of Managing Director of Jhalana Doongri Depot of RSRTC. The copy of the dispatch register at S. No. 335 indicates that the letter dated 6.7.1996 was issued to the writ petitioner with regard to the compliance of the judgment of the Court. This therefore becomes doubtful as to which of the two letters is genuine. The copy of the dispatch register at S. No. 335 indicates that the letter dated 6.7.1996 was issued to the writ petitioner with regard to the compliance of the judgment of the Court. This therefore becomes doubtful as to which of the two letters is genuine. However, this aspect of the matter need not be gone into further in view of the order that was passed by this Court on 6.9.2018, which reads as under: "At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent would not insist on payment of pension on the basis of option said to have been exercised by him, if the appellants pay to him other benefits including arrears of salary, CPF and Gratuity etc. with interest as per directions of the learned Single Judge." 11. It would be evident from the aforesaid order that the respondent-writ petitioner had expressed the inclination to give up the pension on the basis of the option said to have been exercised by him. However, his only prayer was that in that event, he should be given all the arrears of salary, CPF and Gratuity with interest. It goes without saying that in view of the order of the Court passed under Section 33(c)(2) and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. vs. Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors.- (2002) 2 SCC 244 relating to effect of rejection of approval application, respondent-writ petitioner shall be throughout deemed to be reinstated in service of the RSRTC. 12. In that view of the matter, we dispose of the appeal by directing the appellant-RSRTC to treat the respondent continued in their service throughout till he attained the superannuation i.e. on 31.12.2010 and accordingly make his pay fixation, compute the arrears of salary by adding the benefit of revised pay scale from time to time, selection scale, if paid to his fellow employees, during the interregnum from the date of suspension till the date of his reinstatement and also the amount of CPF and gratuity and make payment of the same together with interest @ 6% per annum within three months from the date copy of this order is produced before. 13. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.