JUDGMENT Sonia Gokani, J. 1. Leave to amend the cause-title by impleading the official liquidator as party respondent. Amendment be carried out forthwith. 2. At the request of learned advocates for the respective parties, the present petition is taken up for final consideration today. Hence, Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms. E. Shailaja waived service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. 2.1. This Court requested learned advocate Mr. Jeet Bhatt, an empaneled advocate of the office of official liquidator to appear in this matter. He accepted the request and waived service of notice of rule on behalf of the official liquidator. 3. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking following reliefs:- "(A) Yours Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition with cost by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to hold that the action of the respondent in not accepting the claim form and not granting the benefit mentioned under the Pension Scheme which has been made applicable with effect from 1.1.1995 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India; (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the benefit of pension with effect from 1.1.1995 with interest in view of the fact that the services of the petitioner have been treated as continuous and as if on actual duty upto 17.1.1997; (D) Any other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit and proper may please be granted." 4. The brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under:- 4.1 The petitioner joined the services of Ambica Mills Ltd. with effect from 13.07.1985. The petitioner was a permanent employee and her designation was office clerk. The said Ambica Mills Ltd. was closed down with effect from 18.05.1994 and it was registered under the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985. The Board of Industrial Financial Reconstruction was seized of the matter for revival, however, it could not revive the company and sent recommendations to this Court in 1995 for winding up. The said Ambica Mills Ltd. was closed down with effect from 18.05.1994 and it was registered under the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985. The Board of Industrial Financial Reconstruction was seized of the matter for revival, however, it could not revive the company and sent recommendations to this Court in 1995 for winding up. The company petition was registered as Company Petition No. 121 of 1995 and the winding up order was passed on 17.01.1997 which also resulted into termination of services of the petitioner. 4.2 It is the case of the petitioner that the amendment in Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 was introduced and with effect from 01.11.1995, the pension scheme was made applicable to all employees who were members of the provident fund. The condition was that the concerned member/employee should have completed 10 years of service. 4.3 The petitioner submitted the claim form on 07.12.2017 which the authority of the respondent refused to accept and the petitioner was orally informed that the petitioner had not completed 10 years of service. It is the case of the petitioner that although the right of the petitioner was crystallized on 12.05.1999 and she was paid full dues, such approach of the respondent is said to be pedantic in nature. 5. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the other side contending that the petitioner had not completed 10 years of eligible service as required in terms of para 12(1)(a) and (b) of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. It is the say of the respondent that the petitioner completed 8 years and 7 months of total service which after rounding off comes to 9 years. The petitioner never objected to the date of exit mentioned as 18.05.1994. The petitioner herself accepted that the establishment was closed down with effect from 18.05.1994. So far as claiming the benefit of service upto the date of winding order dated 17.01.1997 is concerned, it is the say of the respondent that the petitioner had never approached the respondent to claim membership from closure date i.e., 18.05.1994 to 17.01.1997. It is the say of the respondent that though the petitioner admitted in the petition that she was paid benefits upto 17.01.1997 by treating her on duty in the year 2010, no whisper is emanating from the petitioner regarding grant of membership for such period all along. 5.1. It is the say of the respondent that though the petitioner admitted in the petition that she was paid benefits upto 17.01.1997 by treating her on duty in the year 2010, no whisper is emanating from the petitioner regarding grant of membership for such period all along. 5.1. It is categorically stated that since the petitioner had not completed 10 years of eligible service as per para 12(1)(a) and (b) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, the petitioner would be eligible for withdrawal benefits in terms of para 14 as she rendered less than 10 years of eligible service. According to the respondent, the petitioner omitted to inform the respondent that she had been paid her full dues in the year 2010. So far as other details are concerned, the same have been denied. According to the respondent, the petitioner's PF amount was settled for Rs. 19,541/- in August, 1998 and no claim was raised at that stage. As per the say of the respondent, the petitioner's establishment M/s. Ambica Mills Ltd. falls under the jurisdiction of office of the deponent i.e., RO, Vatwa, which comes under the purview of RPFC-II, RO, Vatwa and respondent No. 1 - RPFC-I RO, Ahmedabad has no role in the matter either directly or indirectly. 6. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner relying on the decision of this Court in 2000(4)GLR 2923. 7. Heard learned advocate Mr. D.S. Vasavada for the petitioner, learned advocate Ms. E. Shailaja for respondent No. 1 and learned advocate Mr. Jeet Bhatt for respondent No. 3. 8. In para 12 of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, it is apparent that a member shall be entitled to superannuation pension if he has rendered eligible service of 10 years or more and retires on attaining the age of 58 years. For early pension, if he has rendered eligible service of 10 years or more and retires or otherwise ceases to be in the employment before attaining the age of 58 years. If a member has not rendered the eligible service as specified in sub-para (1) of para 12 on the date of exit, or on attaining 58 years of age, whichever is earlier, such member shall be entitled to a withdrawal benefit as laid down in Table "D" or may opt to receive the Scheme certificate provided on the date he has not attained 58 years of age. It is provided that for calculating such withdrawal benefit, the wages at exit shall be the weighted average of his wages at the end of every wage ceiling period. Table "D" under the heading of Return of Contribution on Exit from the Employment providing for years of service and proportion of wages at exit is required to be considered along with paragraph 14. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has served as an employee of M/s. Ambica Mills Limited and according to her say, she joined the services on 13.07.1985 and 18.05.1994 is the date of closure of the company. The winding up order was passed on 17.01.1997 by this Court in Company Petition No. 121 of 1995 and the official liquidator came to be appointed by virtue of order of the court. 10. According to learned advocate Ms. E. Shailaja for respondent No. 1, once any claim is received under the Employees' Pension Scheme by way of application, the certificate of the employer would be required and in absence of the employer, it will be sent to the official liquidator for the purpose of authentication. It is emphatically stated before this Court that after submission of such claim form, it is routed through proper authority. 11. Learned advocate Mr. Jeet Bhatt for the respondent - official liquidator has submitted that on due examination of the matter, necessary authentication will be done, once the application is tendered to the office of the official liquidator for the purpose of seeking monthly pension under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. 12. Learned advocate Mr. D.S. Vasavada for the petitioner has submitted that such claim form as required by the office of official liquidator shall be submitted within 2 weeks. Thereafter, after submission of such form to respondent No. 2, the same may be directed to be processed after due scrutiny and finalized within 4 weeks. 13. This Court has not gone into the merits of the case of the petition. It shall be for the concerned authority to look into the matter and process the form. 14. Let the form as may be submitted by the petitioner within 2 weeks to the office of official liquidator be processed within 4 weeks bearing in mind the Employees' Pension Scheme & other relevant aspects. Outcome shall bind the petitioner who shall be also entitled to further challenge, if necessary. 15. 14. Let the form as may be submitted by the petitioner within 2 weeks to the office of official liquidator be processed within 4 weeks bearing in mind the Employees' Pension Scheme & other relevant aspects. Outcome shall bind the petitioner who shall be also entitled to further challenge, if necessary. 15. Disposal of this petition shall not in any manner prejudice the right of either side. Direct service is permitted.