ORDER : 1. By way of filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is aggrieved by the illegal and arbitrary impugned order dated 29.06.2016, whereby the respondents have wrongly sought to discontinue the petitioner from the GPF-cum-pension scheme. The petitioner seeks quashing of the said order and a direction to the respondents to continue to treat the petitioner under the GPF and pension scheme, to release all retiral benefits accordingly, and to forthwith issue/allot a GPF number to the petitioner, along with such other reliefs as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 29.06.2016, whereby the respondents, despite having themselves placed the petitioner under the General Provident Fund (GPF) Scheme vide order dated 22.09.1996 and having continuously deducted GPF contributions from his salary for several years, have arbitrarily decided to treat the petitioner under the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme and have started deducting CPF contributions in place of GPF with effect from July, 2016, without assigning any reason and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that identically situated employees, who opted for the GPF Scheme along with the petitioner, have been granted the benefit of the GPF Scheme, whereas the petitioner alone has been discriminated against. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Conductor in the respondent department vide appointment order dated 26.10.1981. The petitioner is due to retire on 28.02.2017. A copy of the appointment order is annexed as Annexure-1. The respondents introduced two provident fund schemes for their employees, namely, the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme and the General Provident Fund (GPF) Scheme, and invited options from the employees to opt for either of the schemes. The petitioner submitted his option form dated 14.08.1996, opting for the GPF Scheme. Prior thereto, the petitioner was being considered under the CPF Scheme. The option form submitted by the petitioner is annexed as Annexure-2. 4. That pursuant thereto, the respondents published a list dated 22.08.1996 of employees who were to be considered under the GPF Scheme along with pensionary benefits, wherein the name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No. 9. Prior thereto, the petitioner was being considered under the CPF Scheme. The option form submitted by the petitioner is annexed as Annexure-2. 4. That pursuant thereto, the respondents published a list dated 22.08.1996 of employees who were to be considered under the GPF Scheme along with pensionary benefits, wherein the name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No. 9. A copy of the said list/order dated 22.08.1996 is annexed as Annexure-3. Thereafter, the respondents started deducting GPF contributions from the salary of the petitioner, as reflected in his pay slips, copies whereof are annexed as Annexure-4 (collectively). One Om Prakash Tak, whose name appeared at Serial No. 20 in the same list dated 22.08.1996, was subsequently granted the benefit of the GPF Scheme vide order dated 27.11.2015, thereby clearly demonstrating discriminatory treatment meted out to the petitioner. A copy of the said office order is annexed as Annexure-5. 5. That despite continuously deducting GPF amounts from the petitioner’s salary, the respondents failed to allot or mention a GPF Account Number to the petitioner, showing gross negligence on their part. Copies of the Pay Drawn Statement and Schedule of GPF are annexed as Annexure-6 (collectively). The petitioner, apprehending serious prejudice at the time of his retirement, repeatedly approached the respondent authorities through representations for allotment of a GPF number and for redressal of his grievance. The competent authorities forwarded his representations to higher authorities; however, no effective action was taken. Copies of the representations and related correspondence are annexed as Annexure-7 (collectively). Even the Finance Adviser of the respondents requested the competent authority for allotment/issuance of the petitioner’s GPF number vide communication dated 15.06.2015, yet no action was taken thereafter. A copy of the said communication is annexed as Annexure-8. When no relief was granted, the petitioner was constrained to serve a representation and a notice for demand of justice upon the respondents in order to avoid harassment and non-payment of provident fund benefits upon his retirement. Copies of the representation/notice are annexed as Annexure-9. 6. That all of a sudden, the respondents issued the impugned order dated 29.06.2016, declaring that the petitioner would be considered under the CPF Scheme. A copy of the impugned order is annexed as Annexure-10. Consequently, from July, 2016, the respondents started deducting CPF contributions instead of GPF contributions from the petitioner’s salary, thereby depriving him of the benefits of GPF and pension. A copy of the impugned order is annexed as Annexure-10. Consequently, from July, 2016, the respondents started deducting CPF contributions instead of GPF contributions from the petitioner’s salary, thereby depriving him of the benefits of GPF and pension. A copy of the pay slip for July, 2016 is annexed as Annexure-11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner is highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory actions of the respondent department and, having no other efficacious alternative remedy available, has been compelled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by way of the present writ petition. Grievance and Facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 377/2017- 7. By way of filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is aggrieved by the illegal and arbitrary action of the respondents in issuing the impugned letter dated 14.08.2012, whereby the petitioner has been wrongly denied the benefits of the GPF Scheme. The petitioner seeks quashing of the said letter and a direction to the respondents to treat him as a member of the GPF Scheme and to release all consequential retiral and service benefits, including payment of GPF amount with interest, gratuity, pension, leave encashment, arrears of the 5th and 6th Pay Commissions along with due interest, as lawfully payable to the petitioner. 8. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner, initially appointed as Assistant Traffic Inspector in 1975 and retired on 28.07.2011 while serving as Assistant Divisional Manager, was throughout his service treated as a member of the General Provident Fund (GPF) Scheme. Pursuant to the option invited by the respondents, the petitioner opted for the GPF + Pension Scheme vide letter dated 14.08.1996, and thereafter GPF deductions commenced from his salary w.e.f. 26.08.1996 at the rate of Rs.245 per month and continued regularly till his retirement. The petitioner was allotted GPF Account No. GS-986, and this status was consistently reflected in his monthly pay slips, last pay certificates issued on transfers, GPF deduction slips, pension kulak, and sanction of loans from the GPF account by competent authorities after due verification of records. Even at the time of retirement, the respondents sanctioned and paid the accumulated GPF amount vide office order dated 19.08.2011 from the petitioner’s GPF account, thereby unequivocally acknowledging him as a GPF member. 9. Even at the time of retirement, the respondents sanctioned and paid the accumulated GPF amount vide office order dated 19.08.2011 from the petitioner’s GPF account, thereby unequivocally acknowledging him as a GPF member. 9. Despite the above, after retirement the respondents took an abrupt and contrary stand that the petitioner was a member of the CPF Scheme, even though no CPF contributions were ever deposited with the provident fund office. Vide letter dated 25.07.2012, a cheque of Rs. 8,96,721/- was sent to the petitioner treating the amount as CPF, followed by an impugned communication dated 14.08.2012 reiterating such stand, without examining the complete service record. As a consequence, the petitioner’s pension and other retiral benefits, including gratuity, leave encashment, and arrears under the Vth and VIth Pay Commissions, were not released. Repeated representations dated 30.07.2012, 21.08.2012, and 31.08.2012 remained unredressed, compelling the petitioner to approach this Hon’ble Court. An earlier writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one vide order dated 08.09.2016, and hence, being aggrieved by the arbitrary post-retirement change of scheme and denial of lawful retiral dues, the present writ petition has been filed. 10. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record. 11. Nature of controversy and issues involved Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon a conjoint consideration of the pleadings and material placed on record, this Court finds that both the writ petitions raise identical questions of law and substantially similar factual issues. The core controversy centres around the entitlement of the petitioners to be governed by the R.S.R.T.C. Employees’ PENSION REGULATIONS , 1989 read with the R.S.R.T.C. Employees’ G.P.F. Regulations, 1989, and the legality of the respondents’ action in retrospectively or post- retirement seeking to treat them as members of the C.P.F. Scheme, 1964, despite long-standing treatment as G.P.F. members. 12. The issues for adjudication, therefore, essentially pertain to: (i) whether submission of an option was mandatory for employees regularised prior to the enforcement of the Pension and G.P.F. Regulations, 1989; and (ii) whether, in any event, the option exercised by the petitioners on 14.08.1996, coupled with consistent administrative conduct of the respondents, confers an indefeasible right upon the petitioners to pensionary and G.P.F. benefits. 13. 13. Statutory framework and legislative intent It is not in dispute that at the time of regularisation of services of the petitioners, the R.S.R.T.C. C.P.F. Regulations, 1964 were in force. Subsequently, the R.S.R.T.C. Employees’ PENSION REGULATIONS , 1989 and G.P.F. Regulations, 1989 came into effect w.e.f. 01.04.1989. Regulation 3(1) of the PENSION REGULATIONS introduced the concept of “option” and, significantly, incorporated a deeming fiction whereby any existing employee who failed to exercise an option within the stipulated period of 90 days was to be deemed to have opted for the Pension and G.P.F. scheme. The language of the regulation leaves no scope for ambiguity and manifests a clear legislative intent to bring such employees within the fold of the pensionary regime by default. 14. The subsequent notifications dated 02.01.1990 and 08.02.1992 reinforced this intent in unequivocal terms by reiterating that non-submission of an option within the prescribed period would automatically attract the applicability of the Pension and G.P.F. Regulations. The amended notification dated 15.06.1996, relied upon by the respondents, cannot be read in isolation or applied retrospectively so as to divest accrued or crystallised rights of employees who had already stood covered by the deeming clause or whose status had been consistently recognised by the employer itself. 15. Application of the deeming clause to the petitioners In the present cases, the petitioners were regularised prior to 01.04.1989 and admittedly did not submit any option within the initial 90-day period. By operation of the statutory deeming clause contained in Regulation 3(1), they stood automatically governed by the Pension and G.P.F. Regulations. This position is fortified by the notifications of 1990 and 1992, which categorically prohibited extension of time for exercising option and simultaneously declared the automatic applicability of pensionary regulations in the absence of a contrary option. 16. Thus, even de hors the subsequent option dated 14.08.1996, the petitioners had already acquired a statutory right to be treated as members of the G.P.F.-cum-pension scheme. 17. Effect of option dated 14.08.1996 and consistent administrative conduct Without prejudice to the above, the record reveals that the petitioners did submit option forms on 14.08.1996 opting for G.P.F. and pensionary benefits. 16. Thus, even de hors the subsequent option dated 14.08.1996, the petitioners had already acquired a statutory right to be treated as members of the G.P.F.-cum-pension scheme. 17. Effect of option dated 14.08.1996 and consistent administrative conduct Without prejudice to the above, the record reveals that the petitioners did submit option forms on 14.08.1996 opting for G.P.F. and pensionary benefits. Thereafter, the respondents themselves published lists placing the petitioners under the G.P.F. scheme, commenced and continued G.P.F. deductions for years together, sanctioned G.P.F. loans after due scrutiny, reflected G.P.F. status in pay slips, service records, last pay certificates and, in one of the matters, even allotted a specific G.P.F. account number and paid the accumulated G.P.F. amount upon retirement. 18. At no point during the entire service tenure of the petitioners did any authority raise an objection regarding the validity, mode or receipt of the option forms. The silence and consistent conduct of the respondents unmistakably amount to acceptance of the option and recognition of the petitioners’ status as G.P.F. members. The respondents, therefore, are squarely hit by the doctrines of acquiescence, estoppel and legitimate expectation, and cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate by altering the petitioners’ service conditions after decades or, worse, after retirement. 19. Illegality of post-retirement change of scheme The impugned actions/orders whereby the petitioners have been sought to be treated as members of the C.P.F. scheme, either shortly before retirement or after retirement, are patently arbitrary and legally unsustainable. Service conditions relating to provident fund and pension form part of the core service benefits and cannot be altered unilaterally, retrospectively or without affording opportunity of hearing. The respondents’ action not only violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India but also defeats the very object of the beneficial pensionary legislation. 20. Distinguishing the judgment in Madu Giri The reliance placed by the respondents on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.S.R.T.C. v. Madu Giri (Dead) through LRs. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 5274/2008 decided on 26.04.2013) is misconceived. In that case, the employees had admittedly received the employer’s share of C.P.F. with interest and failed to redeposit the same within the stipulated period, disentitling them to pension. In the present cases, the petitioners were never paid the employer’s share of C.P.F., nor were they ever treated as CPF beneficiaries during service. In that case, the employees had admittedly received the employer’s share of C.P.F. with interest and failed to redeposit the same within the stipulated period, disentitling them to pension. In the present cases, the petitioners were never paid the employer’s share of C.P.F., nor were they ever treated as CPF beneficiaries during service. Hence, the ratio of Madu Giri (supra) has no application to the facts at hand. 21. Binding precedents of this Court The controversy stands squarely covered by the reportable judgments of this Court in S.K. Khatri v. R.S.R.T.C. and Ors. (SBCWP No.12854/2017 decided on 01.12.2021) and Rajnikant Sharma v. R.S.R.T.C. and Ors. (SBCWP No. 1155/2005 decided on 27.09.2008), as also subsequent decisions in Dhanna Lal Jat v. R.S.R.T.C. and Ors. (SBCWP No. 12854/2017 decided on 01.12.2021), Vasudev and Ors. v. R.S.R.T.C. and Ors. (SBCWP No. 7685/2020 decided on 13.10.2022) and Prithvi Singh Chauhan v. R.S.R.T.C. and Ors. (SBCWP No. 4268/2017 decided on 03.10.2023), wherein similarly situated employees were held entitled to pension and G.P.F. benefits on the basis of the deeming clause and long-standing administrative recognition. Judicial discipline mandates that the respondents extend identical treatment to the present petitioners. 22. Human and equitable considerations This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioners have crossed the age of superannuation and have been deprived of monthly pension for years together, causing serious financial hardship and defeating the very purpose of social security underlying pensionary schemes. Denial of pension in such circumstances, despite statutory entitlement and admitted deductions, is wholly unjust, inequitable and contrary to law. 23. Conclusion In view of the statutory scheme, the deeming provisions, the admitted factual matrix, the consistent conduct of the respondents, and the binding precedents of this Court, it is held that the petitioners are entitled to be governed by the R.S.R.T.C. Employees’ PENSION REGULATIONS , 1989 and G.P.F. Regulations, 1989. The impugned actions/orders treating them as members of the C.P.F. scheme are illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. 24. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are hereby allowed, with consequential directions to the respondents to treat the petitioners as G.P.F.-cum-pension members and to release all admissible retiral and pensionary benefits in accordance with law.