ORDER : 1. All the petitions involve same and similar questions, as such, all these petitions were tagged together at different intervals and were being heard together. Now vide this common order, all the petitions are being disposed of. Petitioners have been serving the Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Viswavidyalaya (hereinafter, ‘respondent-University’) in different capacities and earlier approached this court by filing writ petitions, which were later on transferred to erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and thereafter again to this Court, on abolition of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Two of the petitions were firstly filed as Original Applications before erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which also were later on transferred to this Court and re-registered as Civil Writ Petition (Original Application) (CWPOA’s), as detailed in the memo of parties However, for the sake of clarity, facts of CWPOA No. 6113 of 2020, titled Suresh Chander v. Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Viswavidyalaya are being discussed herein. 2. Pursuant to decision of the Board of Management (hereinafter, ‘Board’) vide item No. 12(33) in its 58th meeting held on 26.3.1996, respondent-University implemented Pension Scheme for its employees with effect from 1.1.1997, which decision was circulated vide Notification dated 1.1.1997 (Annexure A-24), which reads as under: “NOTIFICATION In pursuance of the decision of the Board of Management taken vide item No. 12(33) of its 58th meeting held on 26.3.1996 and the Pension Rules formulated by the Committee so constituted, the Vice-Chancellor, HPKV, Palampur, is pleased to implement the Pension Scheme for the employees of the Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya w.e.f. 1.1.1997. The salient features of the scheme are as under:- The existing employees of the University have the right to opt for the Pension Scheme or to continue to be governed by the CPF Rules. In case they opt for the Pension Scheme, they have to forego the University contribution credited to their CPF accounts alongwith interest thereon. If however, they opt to continue to be governed by the CPF rules, they will continue to be governed by the existing CPF rules as amended from time to time. In case an existing employee does not give any option within the prescribed period, the pension scheme would automatically be applicable to him. If however, they opt to continue to be governed by the CPF rules, they will continue to be governed by the existing CPF rules as amended from time to time. In case an existing employee does not give any option within the prescribed period, the pension scheme would automatically be applicable to him. The cases of employees who have retired from the University service during the period 1.1.1986 to the date of Notification of Pension Scheme, will be governed by rule 1.9 of the Pension Rules. The existing employees/retired employees/families of the deceased employees are required to exercise option on the prescribed proforma (in qua-drupilcate) within a period of 4 months from the date of notification i.e. upto 30.4.1997. In case of staff posted in Tribal Area, the period of option shall be six months i.e. upto 30.6.1997. The Pension Scheme would be applicable to all the fresh recruitees from the date of notification of the Pension Scheme.. Option once exercised shall be final. The Pension Rules and proforma for exercising option are enclosed.” 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid Notification, all the petitioners opted to be governed by CPF Rules. Subsequently, the respondent-University on the request having been made by various employees, issued fresh Notification dated 25.7.2002 (Annexure A-26), thereby affording another opportunity to the left out employees to switch over to the Pension Scheme. Notification dated 25.7.2002 reads as under: “NOTIFICATION On the recommendations of the Finance Committee vide Item No. 52(4) of its 52nd meeting held on 4.6.2002 the Board of Management vide Item No. 10 of its 75th meeting held on 28.6.2002 has been pleased to give an opportunity for 2nd option to the left out existing CSKHPKV employees to either retain CPF-cum-Gratuity Scheme or opt for GPF-cum-Gratuity Scheme the said option shall be exercised within 3 months from the date of notification and shall be final. The other conditions shall remain the same as notified vide notification No. 1-128/88-HPKV(Accts)/01-81 dated 1.11.97 and this notification is in continuation thereof.” 4. The other conditions shall remain the same as notified vide notification No. 1-128/88-HPKV(Accts)/01-81 dated 1.11.97 and this notification is in continuation thereof.” 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid Notification, some of the employees exercised fresh option but the fact remains that the petitioners herein did not exercise any option in terms of the aforesaid Notification dated 25.7.2002, rather, they claimed that since Notification dated 25.7.2002 was issued in continuation of Notification dated 1.1.1997 and it was specifically mentioned in that Notification that the other condition(s) shall remain as notified vide Notification dated 1.1.1997, they were not required to exercise option and in the event of theirs having not exercised the option, they were to be automatically considered to have opted for the Pension Scheme. Petitioners also claimed that in the cases of the employees, who did not exercise the option within three months from the date of Notification dated 25.7.2002, Pension Rules (Annexure A-24) were to be made automatically applicable to them and, in this way, petitioners who did not exercise option pursuant to Notification dated 25.7.2002, within three months, were required to be shifted to Pension Rules/Scheme in terms of conditions contained in Notification dated 1.1.1997 (Annexure A-24) as well as Pension rules (Annexure A-25). However, the fact remains that the respondent-University did not accept the aforesaid plea of the petitioners and refused to accept their prayer to be covered under the Pension Scheme/Rules, framed by the respondent- University. Petitioners, repeatedly approached the respondent-University to consider their case under the amended provisions of Notification dated 1.1.1997 and Pension Rules (Annexures A-24, A-25) but the fact remains that no action was taken upon their representations. Case of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that they had not exercised the option in the relevant year i.e. 2002. Petitioners herein repeatedly made representations, as have been placed on record vide Annexures A-27 to A-33. Respondent-University, vide two separate letters dated 14.2.2017 (Annexures A-34, A-35), after having considered the case of the petitioners, intimated that the Himachal Pradesh Government has desired to, first of all, strengthen the pension corpus and then matter of the petitioners be put up to the Finance Committee. 5. Subsequently the respondent-University vide letter dated 26.9.2012 and 12.11.2012 returned the representations filed by the petitioners with the observation that the petitioners had not given the alleged reasons for not exercising the option in the year 2002. 5. Subsequently the respondent-University vide letter dated 26.9.2012 and 12.11.2012 returned the representations filed by the petitioners with the observation that the petitioners had not given the alleged reasons for not exercising the option in the year 2002. (Annexures A36, A37 and A-38). Vide representation dated 30.1.2013 and 21.5.2013, petitioners mentioned that they were not informed about the Notification dated 25.7.2002 and as such they were unable to exercise the option (Annexures A-39, 34). 6. Finally, the respondent-University vide letters dated 23.8.2013, 27.8.2013 and 24.8.2013 (Annexures A-47, A-48 and A-49), rejected the case of the petitioners on the ground that they opted to remain under CPF Scheme during 1997 and during the year 2002, they remained silent. 7. In the meantime, respondent-University vide letter dated 27.8.2012 (Annexure A-51), circulated the decision of the Finance Committee, which was further approved by the Board that the matter was discussed at length by the Finance Committee and it observed that the University already allowed opportunity of exercising the option twice and then there were two categories of employees viz. (1), those who could not exercise option in terms of Notification dated 25.7.2002 for one reason or the other and (2), those who opted to continue to be governed by the Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity Scheme and that there was no question of allowing another option to the second category of employees, whereas so far the first category is concerned, it decided that as there was provision under the Pension Scheme of the University to regulate the cases of the employees who could not exercise option, their cases may be considered as per relevant rule of the said pension scheme. Respondent-University through its Comptroller, further requested to process the cases of the employees, if any, as per recommendations of the Finance Committee, duly approved by the Board and send the same to it for consideration after verifying the original record and authenticating the case. 8. Vide letter dated 5.12.2011 (Annexure A-62), one Kamal Dev Sharma, who had opted to continue to be governed by the CPF Scheme 1997, requested that he could not avail the opportunity to exercise option as he was on study leave in the USA from February, 2002 to November, 2003 and as such, he be allowed to opt for GPF/Pension Scheme . Respondent-University entertained the aforesaid claim of aforesaid Kamal Dev Sharma and vide letter dated 8.5.2012 (Annexure A-64), accepted the claim of aforesaid person for Pension Scheme. Accordingly, it allotted GPF No. 2166 to him. (Relevant Annexures A-62 to A-69 and A-64). 9. Perusal of the representation dated 5.12.2011 submitted by aforesaid Kamal Dev Sharma and noting sheet (Annexure A-63), reveals that the aforesaid Kamal Dev Sharma had also opted for CPF Scheme vide option dated 24.4.1997 pursuant to Notification dated 1.1.1997. It is not in dispute that aforesaid Kamal Dev Sharma had not exercised the option pursuant to Notification dated 25.7.2002 but thereafter, after two years of issuance of aforesaid Notification, requested for shifting from CPF to GPF and his request was considered by the respondent- University. While considering the case of aforesaid Kamal Dev Sharma, respondent-University categorically mentioned that there is provision under the Pension Scheme to regulate the cases of those employees, who could not exercise the option as per Notification dated 25.7.2002 and Pension Rules and, while considering the representations/claim of the present petitioners, respondent-University took a U-turn and rejected their cases on the ground that they allegedly kept silent in the year 2002 and cannot be considered as ‘left out’ category. 10. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid arbitrary and discriminatory action of the respondent-University, whereby requests of the petitioners to permit them to switch over to the new Pension Scheme, came to be rejected, petitioners approached erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and on abolition of the Tribunal, Original Applications filed by them were transferred to this Court and re-registered. Since the reliefs sought by the petitioners in all the petitions are same and similar, it would suffice to take note of the reliefs prayed for in CWPOA No. 6113 of 2020, which are thus: “(i) That the letter dated 23.8.2013 (Annexure/A-47), letter dated 23.8.2013 (Annexure/A-48), letter dated 24.8.2013 (Annexure/A-49), letter dated 21.11.2013 (Annexure/A-50), letter dated 30.7.2016 (Annexure/A-55) and letter dated 30.7.2016 (Annexure/A-56) being illegal, discriminatory, unconstitutional, contrary, arbitrary, unjustified, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and unsustainable in the eyes of law, may kindly be quashed. (ii) That the applicants may kindly be held entitled to switch over/shift from CPF-cum-Gratuity Scheme to GPF-cum-Pension and Gratuity Scheme on the analogy of Dr. (ii) That the applicants may kindly be held entitled to switch over/shift from CPF-cum-Gratuity Scheme to GPF-cum-Pension and Gratuity Scheme on the analogy of Dr. Kamal Dev Sharma in accordance with the provisions and spirit of the Notification dated 1.1.1997 (Annexure/A-24), Notification dated 25.7.2002 (Annexure/A-26), Pension Rules (Annexure/A-25) and letter dated 27.8.2012 (Annexure/A-51) and the respondent University may accordingly be directed to switch over/shift the applicants from CPF-cum-Gratuity Scheme to GPF-cum-Pension and Gratuity Scheme alongwith all consequential benefits.” 11. Pursuant to notices issued in the petitions, respondent-University has filed detailed reply(ies), wherein facts, as have been taken note herein above, are not disputed. In nutshell, the case of the respondent- University is that it had provided second opportunity to the left out existing employees, either to retain CPF-cum-Gratuity scheme or shift to GPF-cum-Gratuity Scheme but since the petitioners herein were not from the ‘left out’ category, they were rightly denied the opportunity to exercise second option. Besides above, the respondent-University has also stated in its reply that since the Notification dated 25.7.2002 was meant for the ‘left out employees’ and the petitioners had also opted for CPF Scheme in 1997 and option once exercised is final, the option earlier exercised by them cannot be treated as automatically changed to GPF Scheme. While admitting the factum with regard to the representations having been filed by Kamal Dev Sharma, praying therein to permit him to shift from CPF to GPF Scheme, the respondent-University has claimed in its reply that the second option was given vide Notification dated 25.7.2002, to the left out staff and at that time, Kamal Dev Sharma was in foreign country from February, 2002 to November 2002, as such, on his request, he was provided opportunity to exercise the option in terms of Notification dated 25.7.2002. 12. I have heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 13. Having heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that vide Notification dated 1.1.1997 (Annexure A-24), pension scheme for the employees of the respondent-University was implemented. Perusal of the aforesaid scheme reveals that there were two categories of the employees viz. 13. Having heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that vide Notification dated 1.1.1997 (Annexure A-24), pension scheme for the employees of the respondent-University was implemented. Perusal of the aforesaid scheme reveals that there were two categories of the employees viz. (1), those existing employees, who positively exercised the option to continue to be governed under the CPF Rules and, (2) those employees, who either positively opted for the Pension Scheme or who did not exercise option within the stipulated period, hence, category (2) of the employees was governed by Pension Scheme. It is also not in dispute that vide Notification dated 25.7.2002, the respondent-University decided to afford second option to its left out existing employees either to retain the Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity Scheme or opt for General Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity Scheme. Aforesaid option was to be exercised within three months from the date of notification and was to be considered as final. Most importantly, in the aforesaid Notification, it stood recorded that other conditions shall remain the same as notified vide Notification dated 1.1.1997 (Annexure A-24). Even in the aforesaid Notification, while the aforesaid second option was granted, there were three types of employees viz. (1), those who positively opted to continue their Pension Scheme, (2), those who exercised option to continue to be governed under the General Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity Scheme, who failed to exercise option for Pension Scheme 1997 and (3), those who did not exercise option either way. 14. Material available on record reveals that the third category of the employees, those who did not exercise option either way, were requesting time and again for allowing them to be governed by Pension Scheme, 1997 and as such, matter came to be placed before Finance Committee of the respondent-University in its 90th meeting held on 28.3.2012. As per item No. 90(8) and 90 (11) (Annexure A-65), following decision came to be taken: Item No. 90(8): To place before the Finance Committee an agenda item with regard to option to switch over into GPF-cum-Pension Scheme from CPF This item was discussed at length along with supplementary item No. 90(11), the committee observed that the University has already allowed opportunity of option twice. Now, there are two categories of the employees (i) who could not exercise their option in pursuance to Notification No. 1-128/02-IPSCSKHPKV( Pension)/55744-886 dated 25.07.2022 for one reason or the other like the case discussed under item 90(8) and (ii) who opted in writing to continue to be governed under existing General Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity Scheme. There is no question for allowing another opportunity of option to the category of employees listed under (ii) above. Since there is provision in the pension scheme of the University to regulate the cases of the employees who could not exercise option, their cases may be considered as per relevant rule of the said pension scheme. Item No. 90(11): To place before the Finance Committee the mater regarding offering of another opportunity of option to the subscribers of Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity Scheme to switch over to the GPF-cum-pension-Gratuity Scheme. As per item No. 90(8)” 15. Similarly, noting sheet (Annexure A-66) also reflects the decision taken in 90th meeting of the Finance Committee, which reads as under: “It is submitted that the Finance Committee in its 90th meeting held on 28.3.12 vide item No. 90(8) had made the following recommendations on the agenda item placed before it vide Item No. 98(11) for offering another opposite party of option to the subscribers of Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity Scheme to switch over to the GPF-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme.:- “the item was discussed at length along with supplementary item No. 90(11). The committee observed that the University has already allowed opportunity of option twice. Now there are two categories of the employees (i) who could not exercise their option in pursuance of Notification No. 1-128/02-IPS-CSKHPKV (Pension)/55744-88 dated 25.7.2002 for one reason or the other like the case discussed under item (90)(8) and (ii) who opted in writing to continue to be governed under the exiting General Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity Scheme. there is no question for allowing another opportunity of option to the category of employees listed under (ii) above. Since there is provision in the pension scheme of the University to regulate the cases of the employees who could not exercise option. Their cases may be considered as per relevant rule of the said pension scheme. there is no question for allowing another opportunity of option to the category of employees listed under (ii) above. Since there is provision in the pension scheme of the University to regulate the cases of the employees who could not exercise option. Their cases may be considered as per relevant rule of the said pension scheme. (F’A’) Accordingly, the ibid recommendations of the FC was circulated among all the functionaries of the University (Flag B) to process the cases of the employees, if any, after verifying the record, whether these employees have opted for CPF or not in 2002 and send the same of those employees who have not opted for CPF scheme or not exercised their option to the Comptroller. The following employees who are CPF subscribers and earlier could not exercise their option from CPF to GPF for one or the other reason in pursuance of above Notification dated 25.7.02 has now requested to consider their cases as per category (i) of the above decision of the Finance Committee item No. 90(11). However, it is further added that below mentioned employees have submitted their option for retaining the CPF-cum-gratuity scheme in the year 1997 as per record available in this office. Further on the securtiny the service books of the concerned employees, it has been found that entry of the same regarding fist option during the year 1997 have been recorded, except employees at Sr. No. 2,3, 9, 10,1 1, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24 & 26, whereas no entry with regard to second option during the year 2002 appears to have been made. Xxxx On the receipt of consent/representation of the above employees, the concerned departments were requested to verify as to why these employees could not exercise their option in response to Notification dated 25.7.2002. The response of HoD in this regard could not yield any fruitful result. There are certain practical problems being aced in implementing the decision of Finance Committee/ Board of Management because most of the deptts/units have not maintained their record properly and it could not be ascertained from the record whether the option granted earlier during the year 2002 have been got noted from the left out employees or not. There are certain practical problems being aced in implementing the decision of Finance Committee/ Board of Management because most of the deptts/units have not maintained their record properly and it could not be ascertained from the record whether the option granted earlier during the year 2002 have been got noted from the left out employees or not. Accordingly, as per discussion held between HPAUTA and the then Comptroller, it was decided that concerned departments may be requested to supply the service books of the employees who have requested to switch over from CPF to GPF. The service books received in this office have been checked and from the scrutiny of the service record, it appears that no entry with regard to option for retaining the CPF-CMP-gratuity scheme has been made in the service books of the individual concerned, at the time of second option in 2002. It is further submitted that University has already granted permission in one of the case in favour of Dr. K.D. Sharma to switch over from CPF to GPF, who could not exercise option for pension scheme in 2002. It is therefore, proposed that we may process the cases of the service employees in light of FC/BOM decision as category (i) of the employees and as per decision already taken by the University in the case of Dr. K.D. Sharma. The cases of retired employees need not be re-opened as the decision of the FC/BOM with regard to retired employees it no clear.” 16. Bare perusal of the aforesaid decision taken by the Finance Committee reveals that it held that the cases of those employees, who could not exercise their option pursuant to second option provided vide Notification dated 25.7.2002, shall be regulated as per 1997 Pension Scheme as there as a default clause in the Pension Scheme for such employee. In view of this, the aforesaid decision was duly approved by the Board in its 102nd meeting held on 3.4.2012, vide item No. 8. 17. In view of this, the aforesaid decision was duly approved by the Board in its 102nd meeting held on 3.4.2012, vide item No. 8. 17. Having carefully perused the aforesaid minutes of 90th meeting of the Finance Committee held on 28.3.2012, this Court finds substantial force in the submission of learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that the case of those employees, who had not exercised option pursuant to Notification dated 25.7.2002 are automatically covered under default clause contained in the pension scheme (Annexure A-22), where it is clearly stipulated that in case existing employee does not give option within the prescribed period, Pension Scheme shall be automatically applicable to him. 18. Aforesaid decision is further fortified with the reading of noting portion (Annexure A-63), which reads as under: “116- Further, as desired by the Hon’ble Vice-Chancellor at N/46 of File No. QSD-3-1/08-CSKHPKV(Funds), an agenda item with regard to option to switch over into GPF-cum-Pension scheme from CPF scheme was placed for approval. 117- Hence, as per item 90(11) of 90th meeting of the Finance Committee held on 28.03.2012, duly approved by the Board of Management, vide item No. 8 of the proceedings of 102nd meeting held on 03.04.2012, has been observed that, since there is provision in the pension scheme of the University to regulate the cases of the employees who could not exercise option, their cases may be considered as per Notification No. 1-128/02-IPSCSKHPKV( Pension)-55744-886 dated 25.07.2022. 118- Since Dr. Kamal Dev Sharma, Assoc. Prof. aid not give any option due to his being on study leave from Feb., 2002 to November, 2003, as such, he is automatically entitled for GPF-cum-Pension-Gratuity Scheme as per Notification No. 1-128/88- HPKV(Acctts.)-1-81 dated 01.01.1997 and as per N/117. 119- In view of the provision of Notification mentioned above, the Comptroller may kindly consider to allow to allot GPF account number by surrendering CPF University contribution to Pension Corpus Fund as per rules, please. 19. It is not in dispute that Dr. Kamal Dev Sharma, Associate Professor had also opted to remain under CPF scheme while exercising option in terms of Notification dated 1.1.1997 (Annexure A-22), as was done by the petitioners. 19. It is not in dispute that Dr. Kamal Dev Sharma, Associate Professor had also opted to remain under CPF scheme while exercising option in terms of Notification dated 1.1.1997 (Annexure A-22), as was done by the petitioners. It is also not in dispute that on account of his being abroad, he was unable to exercise the second option pursuant to Notification dated 25.7.2002 and as such, he represented to the respondent-University to grant him one opportunity to exercise option in terms of the aforesaid Notification. Respondent-University, having taken note of the explanation rendered on record by aforesaid Dr. Kamal Dev Sharma, as detailed herein above, placed the matter before Finance Committee in its meeting held on 28.3.2012, minutes whereof were duly approved by the Board in its 102nd meeting held on 3.4.2012, that since there is provision in the Pension Scheme of the University to regulate the cases of the employees, who could not exercise option, their cases may be considered as per Notification dated 25.7.2002. 20. Mr. B.M. Chauhan, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Ms. Aruna Chauhan, Advocate, while appearing for the respondent-University, vehemently argued that since the petitioners had already opted for CPF scheme in 1997, and option once exercised is final, they could not be treated automatically covered by GPF scheme, however, his aforesaid plea deserves outright rejection being devoid of merit. While rejecting the claim of the petitioners, respondent-University proceeded on the assumption that the petitioners had opted for CPF scheme in 1997 and had not opted out of 1997 Scheme pursuant to Notification dated 25.7.2002, hence, they are bound by initial option as per CPF rules. However, aforesaid stand, if permitted to be taken, would be completely against the subsequent decisions taken by the Finance Committee on 28.3.2012, which was approved by the Board in its meeting held on 3.4.2012 (Annexure A-65), whereby while acceding to the request of Dr. Kamal Dev Sharma, it was stated that since he had not given option pursuant to Notification dated 25.7.2002, he was automatically entitled for GPF Scheme as per Notification dated 1.1.1997. 21. Since, it is not in dispute that Dr. Kamal Dev Sharma is a similarly situate person to that of the petitioners and he had also exercised the option in terms of Notification dated 1.1.1997 to remain under CPF Scheme. 21. Since, it is not in dispute that Dr. Kamal Dev Sharma is a similarly situate person to that of the petitioners and he had also exercised the option in terms of Notification dated 1.1.1997 to remain under CPF Scheme. If it is so, petitioners could not be debarred by respondent- University to exercise second option in terms of Notification dated 25.7.2002 on the ground that they have already exercised the option to remain under CPF scheme in terms of Notification dated 1.1.1997 and since the respondent-University granted permission to aforesaid Kamal Dev Sharma, to switch over from CPF to GPF, who could not exercise option in the year 2002, case of the other employee, who did not exercise option in the year 2002 were also to be processed as category (1) of the employees, as per decision taken in the case of Kamal Dev Sharma. 22. The Board in its 102nd meeting held on 3.4.2012, while approving the Minutes of Meeting of the Finance Committee held on 28.3.2012 has already held that the cases of those employees/staff, who did not exercise the option pursuant to Notification dated 25.7.2002 are automatically covered under the default clause contained in the Pension Scheme, 1997, wherein it is clearly stipulated that in case an existing employee does not give option within the stipulated period, pension scheme will be automatically applicable to him. 23. Since the respondent-University permitted Dr. Kamal Dev Sharma to exercise the second option in terms of Notification dated 25.7.2002 it is estopped from claiming that the petitioners could not exercise second option in terms of Notification dated 25.7.2002, because of their already having opted for CPF in terms of Notification dated 1.1.1997. 24. The employees, who did not exercise any option within the prescribed period were to be governed under new pension scheme. At the cost of repetition, it may be observed that in 1997 Scheme, there were two categories of employees, one those of existing employees, who positively exercised option to be opted out of CPF Rules and second, those employees, who either opted for continuation of scheme or who did not exercise any option within the prescribed period, hence, they were to be governed by pension scheme, meaning thereby, the employees who opted for CPF Rules, were covered by pension scheme. 25. 25. Though learned senior counsel for the respondent-University vehemently argued that the petitioners herein cannot claim themselves to be ‘left out category’ to avail benefit of second Notification dated 25.7.2002 but, as has been observed herein above, ‘left out category’, if any, after implementation of 1997 Pension Scheme is of the employees, who at the time of promulgation of 1997 Scheme had decided to remain under CPF scheme, because, as per 1997 Pension Scheme, employees, who either positively exercised option or did not exercise option were to be covered by the pension scheme, but if it so, ‘left out category’ would be of employees, who at the relevant time, had opted for CPF scheme. 26. Otherwise also, material available on record clearly reveals that the employees falling in third category who had opted for CPF scheme were repeatedly requesting the respondent-University to be governed under 1997 Pension Scheme. Aforesaid interpretation with regard to left out category given by this court is further clarified from the fact that aforesaid Dr. Kamal Dev Sharma, who like the petitioners had also exercised the option in terms of 1997 Notification to remain under CPF scheme, but subsequently, in terms of Notification dated 25.7.2002, he was afforded an opportunity to exercise option on the line that at the time of issuance of aforesaid Scheme, he was not available in the country. Another argument advanced by learned senior counsel for the respondent-University that since the petitioners herein failed to exercise the option in terms of Notification dated 25.7.2002, they are estopped from making prayer to switch over from CPF to GPF is wholly untenable, because, bare perusal of Notification dated 25.7.2002 itself reveals that the same was issued in continuation of Notification dated 1.1.1997 and all the conditions contained in the Notification dated 1.1.1997 were to remain the same. If it is so, in the event of non-exercise of option by the employees, they were to be deemed to be governed under the Pension Scheme. 27. If it is so, in the event of non-exercise of option by the employees, they were to be deemed to be governed under the Pension Scheme. 27. Learned senior counsel for the respondent-University relied upon following judgments to enure his argument that the employees have already opted to be governed by CPF Scheme: (i) Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59 (ii) Rajasthan Agriculture University v. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 12 SCC 610 and, (iii) V. Kannappan v. Union of India, (2015) 2 SCC 623 (iv) Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Dwarka Prasad Koolwal, (2015) 12 SCC 51 (v) Pepsu RTC v. Amandeep Singh, (2017) 2 SCC 766 28. Judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases supra, as relied by learned senior counsel for the respondent-University, have no application in the present case. In the aforesaid judgments, it has been held that the option once exercised is final. However, in the case at hand, facts are altogether different, where respondent-University itself, after introduction of Pension Scheme, 1997, issued another Notification dated 25.7.2002, calling upon its employees to exercise fresh option and in the subsequent Notification, it specifically came to be recorded that the other terms and conditions of Pension Scheme 1997, shall remain the same, as a consequence of which, the ‘left out’ category, which includes, the petitioners herein, as has been discussed herein above, in the event of non-exercise of option, were to be covered under the GPF-cum-Pension- Gratuity Scheme, 1997. 29. Consequently, in view of above, decision of the respondent- University in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for switching over from CPF to GPF-cum-Pension scheme, is quashed and set aside being contrary to the Finance Committee decision duly approved by the Board of the respondent-University. Petitioners are held entitled to be governed by the Pension Scheme as framed vide Annexure A-24 read with Pension scheme, Annexure A-25 from due dates, with all consequential benefits. All the petitions stand disposed of in the afore terms alongwith all pending applications.