JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the award dated 12.06.2017, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned award has been passed without considering the relevant circular issued by the Finance Department on 13.04.2011. 3. Learned counsel submitted that as per the said circular, the employees, who were covered under the NSDL (National Security Depositary Limited) were to be converted by changing their account as Permanent Retirement Account Number (PRAN). 4. Learned counsel submitted that all those employees who have to get the benefit of New Pension Scheme, were required to complete the formalities by May, 2011 and such information of each employee was to be furnished through State Insurance and Provisional Funds Department to the District Office. 5. Learned counsel submitted that the change/switch over from NSDL to Permanent Retirement Account Number (PRAN) was also to be followed by all the employees and they were to see the Official Website which was given in the circular itself. 6. Learned counsel submitted that in the present facts of the case, the respondent-employee, who was working from the year 2005 to 2011 at Pratapgarh and Chittorgarh, later on transferred to Jaipur in March, 2011. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on account of transfer of the respondent-employee, his entire account details were sent to the Jaipur office on 20.12.2016 and a sum of Rs.2,88,862/- including interest was transferred to National Security Depositary Limited (NSDL) and as such no loss was caused to the respondent-employee. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Permanent Lok Adalat has wrongly come to the conclusion that the Department-Authorities was negligent in not taking action of transferring the due amount to the respondent. 9. Learned counsel further submitted that only on hypothetical basis no calculation can be done by the Permanent Lok Adalat and without any investment of money, Notional Benefit of NAV/Dividends have been given. 10. Learned counsel submitted that the requirement of uploading the details by the employee concerned, has not been kept in mind and entire responsibility has been shifted to the Government Officials. 11. Learned counsel further submitted that award of interest @ 7.5% per annum was also not warranted in the facts of the present case and as such this Court is required to interfere in the present matter. 12. 11. Learned counsel further submitted that award of interest @ 7.5% per annum was also not warranted in the facts of the present case and as such this Court is required to interfere in the present matter. 12. This Court, on the last date of hearing on 12.05.2022, had asked learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as whether compliance of the award dated 12.06.2017, has been made or not. 13. Learned counsel submitted that since writ petition was filed in the year 2018 itself and as such the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, has not been implemented. 14. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. 15. This Court, on bare perusal of the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, finds that the due amount of the respondent-employee was not transferred as the employee concerned was transferred from Chittorgarh to Jaipur and contribution of the employee as well as of the State was required to be deposited in PRAN account and failing to deposit such account, the previous account of the PRAN was also not uploaded in NSDL. 16. This Court further finds that the Officers only wrote letters to each other about compliance of the change of scheme and in fact the action which was required to be taken at District Level as per the circular, was not taken and as such it resulted into depriving the employee concerned of depositing the contribution by the State. 17. This Court further finds that the employee concerned though had demanded Rs.31,000/- along-with interest, however, the Permanent Lok Adalat has found that the amount of contribution which was required to be deposited by the State, was required to be considered for the grant of benefit of interest on Notional basis up to December, 2016. 18. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the circular dated 13.04.2011 (Annex-4) had cast a duty on the employee concerned to upload the details about change of pension scheme, this Court finds that the said circular nowhere imposes a duty on the employee concerned. 19. On the contrary circular dated 13.04.2011 provides all details of change of scheme from PRAN to NSDL, which was required to be complied with at the district level and all those information were required to be uploaded on the web-site. 20. 19. On the contrary circular dated 13.04.2011 provides all details of change of scheme from PRAN to NSDL, which was required to be complied with at the district level and all those information were required to be uploaded on the web-site. 20. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no delay on the part of the petitioners to deposit the requisite contribution to the employee concerned, this Court finds that the Permanent Lok Adalat has recorded in its order that the amount, which was required to be transferred in the month of March, 2011, the same was transferred somewhere in December, 2016. 21. This Court finds that the petitioners are employer of the employee concerned and if there has been a change of scheme/pension scheme, it was incumbent on the employer to adhere to the scheme, which provides certain benefits to the employee and their due contribution was required to be paid by them. 22. The Permanent Lok Adalat has not committed any error in passing the order dated 12.06.2017. 23. This Court finds no force in the present writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.