JUDGMENT - V.S. DESHPANDE, J.:---The petitioners are the teachers employed in Marwadi Vidyalaya High School, V.P. Road, Bombay. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners pray for a writ or direction directing the respondents, i.e. the Head Master of the High School, the Director of Education and the State of Maharashtra, to withdraw their orders dated 8th February, 1972 and 29th April, 1972 or to quash the same. It is not in dispute that the Vidyalaya of which the petitioners are the teachers is governed by the Secondary Schools Code and happens to be an aided school. Under Rule 70 of the said Code, as it existed prior to 4-11-1968, all teachers like the petitioners were under an obligation to subscribe to the provident fund as prescribed by the Education Department of the State of Maharashtra. Such rules regulating the provident fund for the employees in the secondary and special schools were already framed by the Government in or about the year 1955. In terms of the said rules the petitioners did execute a declaration in form A prescribed under the said Rules and did contribute month by month their own contributions to such provident fund. It is not in dispute that the management of the school also was under in obligation to make contributions and teachers like the petitioners were entitled to get the amount of this provident fund with interest including the contributions made by the teachers and the management along with the contributions by the Government at the end of their career or in some other contingencies when services of the teacher in the school come to an end. Under the Resolution of the Government dated 4th November, 1968, Revised Pension Rules of 1950 as well as Family Pension Scheme sanctioned by the Government on 8th May, 1964, applicable to the State Government servants was made applicable to the teachers in all such secondary schools. To the teachers employed, after 1-4-1966 in all such secondary schools, the scheme became applicable automatically. To the teachers, however, who had joined service before 1-4-1966, the application of the scheme was made optional leaving it to the teachers either to accept the benefits available to them under the contributory provident fund and continue under the said scheme or to opt for pension scheme contemplated under the above Government Resolution dated 4-11-1968. To the teachers, however, who had joined service before 1-4-1966, the application of the scheme was made optional leaving it to the teachers either to accept the benefits available to them under the contributory provident fund and continue under the said scheme or to opt for pension scheme contemplated under the above Government Resolution dated 4-11-1968. It is not in dispute that the petitioners did exercise their option in favour of the pension scheme before the date prescribed therefore. The plain effect thereof is that the petitioners ceased “to continue under the contributory provident fund scheme.” The questions then that arise are whether the teachers like the petitioners, who were already under the obligation to subscribe to the above provident fund, and who had under their declaration in Form A accepted to subscribe to the said contributory provident fund, would also continue to subscribe to such fund even after exercising their choice for the pension rules and whether the contribution made by them till the date of their choice would not be refunded to them till their service with the school comes to an end. It appears that the Government had not made up its mind till 22-9-1971. At an informal meeting of the Consultative Committee on 22-9-1971 consensus seems to have been reached that such scheme which had already become non-contributory provident fund with effect from the exercise of the choice by the teachers in favour of the pension rules should no more continue for such teachers and the amount standing to their credit in such provident fund accounts should be refunded to them. The Government of Maharashtra also seems to have accepted this decision and conveyed through the Under Secretary to the Director of Education by a letter dated 24th November, 1971, and the officers of the Director also appear to have conveyed this decision to the schools concerned under the letter dated 5th January, 1972. The Government, however, seems to have had second thought on this issue. By a letter dated 8th February, 1972 the Directorate of Education informed the Heads of all recognized non-Government Secondary Schools to stop the withdrawal of such amounts till 31st March, 1972, and finally by a letter dated 29th April, 1972, the Directorate conveyed to all the Heads of the recognised non-Government Secondary Schools not to allow withdrawals to any such teachers from their such provident fund accounts. The petitioners challenge the validity of these orders of the Government in this Special Civil Application. There is not much dispute about the facts in this case. The return filed on behalf of the Government, however, indicates that though at one time such decision to allow the teachers opting for the pension scheme to withdraw their contributions from the provident fund was reached by the Government, the same was subsequently reconsidered and finally it was decided not to permit them to withdraw such amounts, as it would have operated as a drain on the Small Savings Scheme of the Government meant to face the inflation in the country. Mr. Trivedi, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, contends that on the exercise of the choice by the petitioners in favour of the pension scheme, the petitioners cease to continue under the contributory provident fund scheme. When they agreed to give up the benefits under the said scheme, they can neither be made liable to make monthly contributions towards the said scheme nor can they be prevented from claiming withdrawal of the amount contributed by them till the date of their choice. We do not propose to express any opinion in this case as to whether under the scheme the teachers, like the petitioners, opting for the pension scheme also can be compulsorily required to continue contributing towards the provident fund scheme, which on the face of it has now become non-contributory one. The claim in this petition is confined to the petitioners right to claim back the total amount of contributions made by them till the exercise of their choice and we propose to examine the legality of the petitioners, claim only to this extent. As indicated earlier, teachers like the petitioners were under an obligation to subscribe to the contributory provident fund. Under Rule 5(d) every such teacher was required to sign a declaration in Form A at the time of joining the fund. Under the said declaration the teacher agreed to abide by the Rules regulating the said provident fund. It is obvious that teachers not being Government servants could not have been bound by these Rules and Regulations without such declaration and agreement to abide by the same. Under the said declaration the teacher agreed to abide by the Rules regulating the said provident fund. It is obvious that teachers not being Government servants could not have been bound by these Rules and Regulations without such declaration and agreement to abide by the same. It only on his joining the fund that the management was placed under an obligation under Rule 7 to contribute an amount equal to one-half of the sum subscribed by the teacher. The rules also provide as to how the contributions made by the teacher and the management were to be deposited in the postal account in the name of the teacher and how no withdraw therefrom was permissible either by the teacher or the management “without a specific written sanction from the Controlling Officer” or even the withdrawal from the payment made by the Government towards its contribution was not permissible without the authority of such controlling Officer Rules, however, permitted withdrawal from this fund for paying the insurance premiums payable by the teachers and also withdrawals under certain contingencies with the permission of the Controlling Officer. The scheme, however, does not contemplate withdrawal of the amount so contributed, excepting for the specified purpose, till the teacher continues to be in service. Now, it is true that as a result of the exercise of the choice the teacher ceases to continue to be under the scheme and he does come under the pension scheme in terms of Clause 3(i) of the Pension Scheme. It is on this ground that Mr. Trivedi strenuously contends that on the teachers discontinuing to be under the scheme, the obligation to allow the amount to remain locked up in the postal account also should come to an end and as of right the teacher should be held entitled to withdraw such amounts. The contention, however does not appear to us to be sound. The refund of the amount ordinarily is governed by the said Provident Fund rules. The said rule contemplated refund even of his contribution only at the end of the service of the teacher and that too not without prior sanction of the Controlling Officer. By virtue of the declaration made by the teacher at the time of joining the fund, the teacher has made himself bound by each one of the rules governing the said provident fund. By virtue of the declaration made by the teacher at the time of joining the fund, the teacher has made himself bound by each one of the rules governing the said provident fund. As indicated earlier, we are not called upon to decide in this case whether notwithstanding his discounting to be under the scheme his obligation to continue making contributions towards the fund unilaterally under the rules continue or not; but the refund of the amount can be claimed in terms of the rules only at the end of the service and that too with the prior permission of the Controlling Officer. There is nothing in the provisions of the pension scheme to relieve the teacher of his obligation to allow his contributions to remain in the said account and claim the refund thereof only in accordance with the said Provident Fund rules. It is pertinent to bear in mind in this context that what is made available under the provident fund scheme. The choice could only have been exercised with regard to the benefits and not with regard to the obligation. That at, any rate, appears to be the scheme of the pension. The benefits that were available under the provident fund rules were the contributions that the management was placed under an obligation to make under the said rules as also the contributions contemplated to be made by the Government at the time when the fund accumulation becomes payable to the teachers at the end of the service. The choice offered under the pension scheme to the teachers like the petitioners really was between the benefits available under such provident fund scheme or the benefits contemplated under the pension scheme. The only implication of the teacher having exercised the choice would be that instead of above benefits of the contributions by the management and the Government in lump sum, the teacher is enabled to get pension in terms of the pension scheme. As indicated earlier, the provisions of the pension scheme prima facie do not contemplate relieving the teacher of his obligation of allowing his contributions to remain in the account till the occasion to withdraw the same arises in terms of the said rules or otherwise at the end of his service with the school. Strong reliance was placed by Mr. As indicated earlier, the provisions of the pension scheme prima facie do not contemplate relieving the teacher of his obligation of allowing his contributions to remain in the account till the occasion to withdraw the same arises in terms of the said rules or otherwise at the end of his service with the school. Strong reliance was placed by Mr. Trivedi on the fact that the pension rules specifically provided for the disposal of the contributions made by the management. Clause (3) of the Pension Scheme does contemplate transfer of this amount to the credit of the State Government. Mr. Trivedi contents that this clause specifically prevented the management from claiming back the said amount, while these Rules do not provide for any prohibition against the withdrawal of his own contribution by the teacher. The contention no doubt is attractive. But Mr. Tambe, the learned Advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, contends that absence of prohibition to that effect itself indicates the intention of the Government to allow such withdrawal to be governed by the rules itself. The contention of Mr. Tambe appears to us to be more plausible than the one advanced before us by Mr. Trivedi. The question essentially is to what extent these pension rules contemplate releving teachers of the obligation under the provident fund rules. In the absence of any intention the teachers must be deemed to be bound by the said rules. Absence of any provision prohibiting the teacher of permitting the teacher from withdrawing the amount or permitting him to withdraw only indicates that the Government intended the said question to be decided in accordance with the rules. As indicated earlier, contributions were required to be made by the teacher in consideration of the contributions by the management and the Government so that at the end of his service in the school he gets lump sum to enable him to rely thereon during the period of his retirement. Instead of this, the Government wants to compensate the teacher in a better was by ensuring pension for the remainder part of his life and thus confer upon him some security or income for him during the remaining part of his life. Instead of this, the Government wants to compensate the teacher in a better was by ensuring pension for the remainder part of his life and thus confer upon him some security or income for him during the remaining part of his life. It is thus not possible to hold that the Government acts unreasonably or unlawfully in not permitting the teachers to withdraw the contributions made by them towards the provident fund, though the management and the Government are relieved of making further contributions to the said fund in terms of the earlier scheme. In this view of the matter, the petition does not appear to us to be tenable. Rule is accordingly discharged. There will be no order as to costs. -----