In view of the order of even date passed in Misc. Civil Application No.2042 of 2012, the order dated 7.5.2012 passed in present petition is recalled.
2. The petitioners in present petition are seeking retiral benefits, which according to their claim are not paid despite repeated requests and representations. Essentially, the dispute related to their claim for CPF Scheme/Pension Scheme. The petitioners claim is that their applications/ representations have not been decided by the concerned departments, despite repeated requests. However, the petitioners are not clear about the department, i.e. which department is obliged to decide their claim.
2.1 Ms.
Chaturvedi, learned advocate for the petitioners, could not make things clear on this count. The options said to have been submitted by the petitioners as regards the option between CPF Scheme and Pension Scheme have to be decided by the department where the petitioners were employed and/or the department responsible for making payment either towards Provident Fund or Pension.
3. Under the circumstances, it has become necessary to ask the respondents to file reply affidavit stating the details about the department in which the petitioners were employed and the authority to whom the petitioners have submitted their options in response to the Office Memorandum dated 1.5.1987 and also about the department, who would be responsible to take decision in respect of the options exercised by the petitioners and the department, who will be responsible to make payment towards the Provident Fund or Pension Scheme.
3.1 The respondents are directed to file appropriate reply so that appropriate and final orders can be passed on the next date of hearing.
The respondents shall ensure that reply affidavit is positively filed without any delay or default, on or before the next date of hearing.
For the aforesaid purpose, let notice be issued to the respondents, returnable on 30.10.2012.
In addition to normal mode of service, Direct Service is also permitted.