JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner filed this writ petition claiming following prayers :- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to accept this writ petition by an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof:- (i) all the pensionary benefits may be given to the petitioner; (ii) from 8.12.1988 to 6.7.2001 all the salary during this period and all consequential benefits may be given to the petitioner; (iii) Selection grade may kindly be paid to the petitioner as per his service;" 2. The brief facts which required to be noticed are that the petitioner was appointed on 22nd May, 1979 with the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short "RSRTC") on the post of "Driver". His services were terminated vide order dated 08.12.1988, which has been challenged by preferring a civil suit. The civil suit was dismissed on 02.09.1994 by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 5, Jaipur. Thereafter, he preferred a Civil Regular Appeal No. 89/1998 before the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur, who set aside the termination order with further direction to the respondent-RSRTC to conduct enquiry fresh, during the pendency of the enquiry, services of the petitioner were to remain under suspension. The enquiry was concluded vide order dated 04.06.2001. The Disciplinary Authority held the petitioner guilty of charges and withheld his two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. The remaining salary apart from substance allowances was also forfeited for the suspension period and the petitioner was reinstated on duty. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner has sought voluntary retirement by moving an application on 31.05.2002 and the same was accepted by the respondent-RSRTC by 28th May, 2002 with effect from 31st May, 2002. The case of the petitioner is for release of pension in terms of voluntary retirement order dated 18.10.2002, however, it has not been released for the reasons that the total actual services rendered by the petitioner was treated as less than 10 years. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the scheme of voluntary retirement, a person can seek voluntary retirement if he has completed more than 10 years of service or has attained age of 40 years. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the scheme of voluntary retirement, a person can seek voluntary retirement if he has completed more than 10 years of service or has attained age of 40 years. It is further submitted that the petitioner had completed more than 23 years of service and therefore his voluntary retirement was accepted and he was entitled to receive pension in terms of the years of service rendered. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents although have not passed any order but have sent the reply of the legal notice informing that the respondents have counted the petitioner's service as 9 years and 9 days only treating the entire period from 08.12.1988 till reinstatement as break in service. 5. A reply has been preferred by the contesting respondents No. 1 & 2 and respondent No. 3 separately. Respondents No. 1 & 2 in their reply state that the petitioner was a member of the Family Pension Scheme of 1971 under the Employee Contributory Provident Fund, it was later on converted as Employee Pension Scheme 1965 w.e.f. 16.11.1995. The pension case of the petitioner was sent to respondent No. 3 who objected that the petitioner has not completed 10 years of service thus not eligible for pension. Thereafter, his contribution of employees has been refunded to him as amounting Rs. 5,749/- and has been deposited in his account, thus, it is submitted that pension is not payable to him. Respondent No. 3 i.e. Provident Fund Department in its reply submitted that the petitioner has not completed qualified pensionable service of 10 years as such he was found not eligible for pension and also states that after having sent the letter from respondent-RSRTC for release of pension, it was noticed that the petitioner was having one more code number i.e. RJ/272/14087. As the pension scheme is linked with pension contribution and total period of service, therefore, it was necessary to get the amount of pension contribution transferred to the present account of the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, necessary actions were taken for transfer of the amount. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's claim form was returned to the petitioner with an advice to resubmit the same, later on, it was found that the previous account number was not correct and the pension contribution had not been deposited by the respondent-RSRTC in the account of the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, necessary actions were taken for transfer of the amount. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's claim form was returned to the petitioner with an advice to resubmit the same, later on, it was found that the previous account number was not correct and the pension contribution had not been deposited by the respondent-RSRTC in the account of the petitioner. Thus, the period for which amount has not been deposited was treated as break in service. Respondent No. 3 states that the date of the membership of the petitioner is 16.08.1980. He left membership on 31.05.2002 and total service rendered as per their calculation is 21 years 9 months and 15 days and the period of break in service was 12 years 7 months 5 days, for which amount has not been deposited. 7. On pointed query made to the counsel for taking any action against the respondent-RSRTC Authorities, learned counsel states that no action was taken for non-depositing of the amount. 8. Upon having noticed the aforesaid facts, this court finds that the petitioner was reinstated in service and the termination order was quashed and set aside by the learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment dated 11.08.1999, and later on, he was punished with stoppage of two annual grade increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 08.06.2001. His services would be therefore deemed to be continued from the date of his initial appointment without any break thus this court agrees with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that services of the petitioner would be counted as almost 23 years. Hence, he would be entitled to receive pension. Fact of non-depositing of the pension contribution on part of the respondent-RSRTC as has come out would not in any manner deprive the petitioner to his entitlement to receive pension under the Employee Pension Scheme 1965. 9. The PF Department was therefore required to release pension of the petitioner. At the same time, there is specific provision under the Rule 7(a) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short "the Act of 1952") for initiating action against the employee, if the employee does not deposit the necessary contribution. 10. Thus, while directing the respondent-RSRTC to deposit the necessary contribution along with the requisite interest as laid down by the PF Department, the petitioner is held to be entitled to receive the pension. 11. 10. Thus, while directing the respondent-RSRTC to deposit the necessary contribution along with the requisite interest as laid down by the PF Department, the petitioner is held to be entitled to receive the pension. 11. The respondent-RSRTC Authorities is therefore directed to deposit the amount within a period of two months from today and the PF Department shall release the pension along with interest as payable. If the amount of contribution is not deposited within the period as above, the PF Department while releasing the pension shall be entitled to initiate action against the concerned authorities under Rule 7(a) of the Act of 1952. 12. In view of the above, writ petition stands allowed.