ORDER : 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 29.2.2020, passed by respondent No. 3-Managing Director, H.P. State Electronic Development Corporation (in short “the respondent-corporation”) whereby representations having been filed by the petitioners herein in terms of order dated 3.4.2019, passed by the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 3018 of 2018, praying therein to grant family pension in her favour in terms of judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 4998 of 2010, Bimla Devi vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 4.1.2021, further upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 1.7.2013, came to be rejected, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main relief: “(i) That the impugned order dated 29.2.2020 Annexure P-20, may kindly be set aside and the respondents may be directed to release the arrear of family pension to the petitioners with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date the amount fell due till actual payment and also to pay monthly family pension to the eligible petitioners in accordance with CCS Pension Rules, 1972 regularly.” 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that late Sh. Jagat Singh Negi, i.e. husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of respondents No. 2 and 3, was appointed as Computer Operator with the respondent-corporation on 16.3.1988 and since then, he had been rendering his services in the respondent-corporation till 26.10.2002, when he died while on official tour to Kullu. Government of Himachal Pradesh notified Himachal Pradesh Corporate Sector Employees (Pension, Family Pension, Commutation of Pension and Gratuity) Scheme 1999 (in short “the H.P. Corporate Pension Scheme 1999”) vide Notification No. Fin-IF(C)1-9/97 dated 29.10.1999. As per the aforesaid H.P. Corporate Pension Scheme, 1999, all pensionary benefits of the employees of the participating H.P. Corporate Sector were to be determined in accordance with the provisions laid down in Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981, as amended and adopted by the Government of Himachal Pradesh for the State Government employees. As per the first proviso to Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 2 of H.P. Corporate Pension Scheme 1999, governing body/board of directors of corporate bodies were required to provide in their respective byelaws/rule/regulations governing their conditions of service by amending respective service byelaws/rules regulations that pension, family pension and commutation of pension and Gratuity shall be under the scheme. Though aforesaid H.P. Corporate Pension Scheme, 1999, had come in force w.e.f. 1.4.1999, but respondent corporation incorporated aforesaid pension scheme in respective byelaws/rules/regulations in the year, 2018. Aforesaid H.P. Corporate Pension Scheme, 1999 was subsequently repealed by the State vide Notification No. Fin-IF (c)1-9/97-iv dated 2.12.2004. As per the repealed notification dated 2.12.2004, employee retired from service w.e.f. 1.4.1999 to the date of publication of notification dated 2.12.2004, shall continue to be governed under the provisions of the repealed scheme and have otherwise become eligible for pension under the scheme. However, it is not in dispute that there was specific provision made in the repealed notification dated 2.12.2004, with regard to grant of family pension to the employees, who died within the period w.e.f. 1.4.1999 to 2.12.2004. Mr. Jagat Singh Negi, expired on 26.10.2002, while in service and during this period, H.P. Corporate Pension Scheme, 1999 was in operation, though was not incorporated by the respondent corporation its bye laws/rules as was required to be done in terms of first proviso to Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 2 of H.P. Corporate Pension Scheme 1999. Though respondent-corporation paid all the pensionary benefits as admissible under EPF Act, 1952, but refused to grant family pension in favour of the petitioner No. 1 being wife of late Sh. Jagat Singh Negi, who died in harness in the year, 2002, despite there being specific provision with regard to family pension contained in the H.P. Corporate Pension Scheme, 1999. Though aforesaid Scheme was repealed vide government notification dated 2.12.2004, but as per repealed notification dated 2.12.2004, employees retired from the service w.e.f. 1.4.1999 till the publication of such notification i.e. 2.12.2004 were to be governed under the provisions of repealed Scheme i.e. the H.P. Corporate Pension Scheme, 1999, provided such retired employees have/had opted for such scheme and had otherwise become eligible for pension under the scheme. 3. Being aggrieved on account of refusal on the part of the respondent-corporation to grant family pension in favour of petitioner No. 1, after the death of her husband, late Sh. 3. Being aggrieved on account of refusal on the part of the respondent-corporation to grant family pension in favour of petitioner No. 1, after the death of her husband, late Sh. Jagat Singh Negi, petitioner filed OA No. 3018 of 2018 before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, praying therein for release of retiral benefits of her late husband. 4. Aforesaid petition having been filed by the petitioners came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 3.3.2019, with direction to the respondent authority to extend the benefit of judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 4998 of 2010 Bimla Sood vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 4.1.2011 (Annexure P-5), which was further upheld by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 346 of 2011, H.P. State Forest Development Corporation vs. Smt. Bimla Sood and Others. In compliance to the directions contained in the aforesaid order dated 3.3.2019, passed by the erstwhile Tribunal in OA No. 3018 of 2018, respondent corporation after having considered case of the petitioners in light of the judgment rendered by this court in Bimla Sood’s case supra, vide order dated 29.2.2020 (Annexure P-20), rejected the case of the petitioners by stating that case of the Devbanti Negi, is not similar to the case of Smt. Bimla Sood. In the aforesaid background, petitioners have approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for reliefs as have been taken note herein above. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that there is no dispute inter-se parties with regard to fact that late husband of the petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioners No. 2 and 3, Mr. Jagat Singh Negi, was a regular employee of the respondent-corporation prior to his unfortunate death in an accident on 26.10.2002. It is also not in dispute that the H.P. Corporate Pension Scheme, 1999, which came into operation w.e.f. 1.4.1999 (Annexure P-3), was made applicable in the respondent-corporation. Though respondent corporation in its reply has attempted to carve out a case that since aforesaid Scheme 1999 was incorporated in its bylaws in the year, 2018, it cannot be made applicable in the case of those employees, who stood retired prior to incorporation of the pension Scheme in the bylaws of respondent corporation, but such plea on the face of it is not tenable and deserves outright rejection. Once it is not in dispute that the H.P. Corporate Pension Scheme, 1999, had come in operation w.e.f. 1.4.1999 and it was made applicable to the employees of the respondent corporation, mere incorporation of such scheme in bylaws of the respondent corporation in terms of first proviso to Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 2 of Corporate Pension Scheme 1999 after an inordinate delay of 19 years, cannot be made ground to deny the legitimate claim of the petitioners. 6. Similarly, this court finds that it is not in dispute that aforesaid H.P. Corporate Pension Scheme, 1999, which came to be notified vide notification dated 29.10.1999, remained in force till 1.4.2004, when it was repealed. While aforesaid pension scheme was in vogue, late Mr. Jagat Singh Negi, was very much in service of respondent-corporation and as such, he being an employee of respondent corporation was entitled to the pensionary benefits as provided under the aforesaid Scheme. In Bimla Sood’s case supra, this Court has categorically held that pension scheme covers entire corporate sector in the Himachal Pradesh including the H.P. State Forest Corporation and H.P. State Small Industries And Export Corporation. While allowing aforesaid petition filed in Bimla Sood’s case, this court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, in that case, for grant of pension in terms of pension scheme. Aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court in Bimla Sood’s case supra has attained finality upto Hon’ble Supreme Court. Vide order dated 29.2.2020 (Annexure P-20), respondent corporation has held that case of the petitioner is not similar to that of Bimla Sood’s case because Smt. Bimla Sood had opted for the H.P. Corporate Pension Scheme, 1999 on the prescribed format with the prescribed period of one month, whereas in the case of the petitioners, late Sh. Jagat Singh Negi, had never opted for the aforesaid scheme in terms of first proviso to Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 2 of H.P. Corporate Pension Scheme 1999. Besides above, it has been further observed in the order impugned in the instant proceedings that in Bimla Sood’s case, petitioner had made representation immediately with HPSFC for grant of pension after exercise of the option for the said scheme, whereas in the present case, petitioner No. 1 never made representation for grant of family pension till 2018 and for the first time, she filed OA before the erstwhile Tribunal. In addition to the aforesaid grounds raised for rejection of the case of the petitioners, it has been also stated in the impugned order dated 29.2.2020 that in Bimla Sood’s case, H.P. State Forest Corporation had made provision under the service bye laws/rules service regulations with regard to applicability of the H.P. Corporate Pension Scheme, 1999 to its employees by amending service by laws during the currency of the said scheme in the 2000, whereas in the case of the petitioners, H.P. Electronic Development Corporation had not made insertion of the scheme in its service bye-laws during the currency of the scheme. Lastly, it has been stated in the order impugned in the instant proceedings that in Bimla Sood’s case, petitioner herself being an employee of the corporation is/was entitled to pensionary benefits in accordance with Para-2 of the notification dated 2.12.2004, which provides that an employee of H.P. Corporate Sector, who retired from service w.e.f. 1.4.1999, to the date of publication of this notification shall continue to be governed under the provisions of the Scheme so repealed and as such, petitioner No. 1 widow of late Sh. Jagat Singh Negi, is not entitled to family pension after his death. 7. All the grounds, as have been taken note herein above, raised by the respondent corporation while rejecting the case of the petitioners are not tenable at all. Careful perusal of the H.P. Corporate Pension Scheme, 1999 (Annexure P-3), which came into operation w.e.f. 1.4.1999, clearly suggests that though employees of H.P. Corporate Sector were required to give option within a period of 30 days, but even if such option is not exercised by the employees of the H.P. Corporate Sector, they shall be also deemed to have exercised the option for this scheme. Relevant paras of the aforesaid scheme are reproduced as under: “(1) This scheme may be made applicable to the employees of Himachal Pradesh Corporate Bodies as specified in Annexure-I appended to this scheme: Provided the governing Body/Board of Directors of these Corporate Bodies shall provide in their respective byelaws/rule/regulations governing their conditions of service by amending respective service bye laws/rules/regulations that pension, family pension and commutation of pension and Gratuity shall be payable to the employees/beneficiaries under this scheme: Provided further that this scheme shall be applicable only to those employees who opt for benefits under the scheme. (2) All employees of the H.P. Corporate Sector shall have to give an option in writing in the form appended as Annexure-II to this scheme within a period of thirty days from the date of notification of this scheme either he/she is to be governed under the existing statutory provisions or to be governed under this scheme. Any employee who does not exercise his/her option within the specified period for whatsoever reasons shall be deemed to have exercised option for this scheme.” 8. It is quite apparent from the bare perusal of the provision contained in the H.P. Corporate Pension Scheme, 1999 that even if option is not exercised by the employee of the H.P. Corporate Sector, he/she shall be deemed to have exercised option for the scheme and as such, case of the petitioners could not be rejected on this ground. 9. Similarly, no fault, if any, can be found with the petitioners qua the delay in inserting the provision of the pension scheme in the service bye laws of the respondent corporation because as per first proviso to Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 2 of H.P. Corporate Pension Scheme 1999, governing body/corporate bodies were required to provide in their respective bye law rules/regulations/governing their conditions of service by amending respective service bye laws/rules regulations that family pension and commutation of pension and gratuity shall be payable to the employees/beneficiaries under this scheme. In the instant case, respondent corporation itself failed to take action in terms of aforesaid conditions in its bye laws for more than 19 years and as such, it cannot be permitted to raise this ground for rejecting the legitimate claim of the petitioners for family pension. Mere delay, if any, in filing representation praying therein to grant family pension cannot be a ground to reject the prayer made on behalf of the family of the late Sh. Jagat Singh Negi, to which they are otherwise entitled in terms of provision contained in the Scheme, which admittedly was in force w.e.f. 1.4.1999 till 2.12.2004, when aforesaid scheme came to be repealed. As per repealed notification dated 2.12.2004, employees retired from service w.e.f. 1.4.199 to the date of publication of the said notification dated 2.12.2004, were to be otherwise governed by the provisions of Scheme, 1999. Since late husband of petitioner No. 1. As per repealed notification dated 2.12.2004, employees retired from service w.e.f. 1.4.199 to the date of publication of the said notification dated 2.12.2004, were to be otherwise governed by the provisions of Scheme, 1999. Since late husband of petitioner No. 1. was very much in service during the aforesaid period, his family otherwise is very much eligible for family pension after his death. Findings returned by the Managing Director of respondent -corporation in his office order dated 29.2.2020, that there is no specific provision for grant of family pension to the families of corporate sector employees, who had died during the year 1.4.1999 to 1.12.2004 and had not opted for the scheme, is totally contrary to the provisions contained in the scheme, which otherwise was framed for interest of those employees, who are not in receipt of any regular service pension. Mere perusal of short title and commencement of the scheme promulgated vide Annexure P-3, itself suggests that it besides making provisions for pension, commutation of pension, gratuity also made provision of family pension to the families of corporate sector employees, who had died during the year 1.4.1999 to 1.12.2004. 10. Consequently, in view of the above, this court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, same is allowed and order dated 29.10.2020, Annexure P-20, is quashed and set-aside and respondent-corporation is directed to grant family pension to the petitioners in terms of provisions contained under the H.P. Corporate Pension Scheme, 1999, from the due date alongwith consequential benefits, within a period of six weeks from today. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.