JUDGMENT S.N. Jha, J. Whether the petitioner is entitled to annual increment of pay after due date of superannuation is the question for consideration in this case. The question has arisen in the following background of facts. 2. The petitioner joined the Bihar Agriculture Service under the State of Bihar in 1950. On establishment of the Rajendra Agriculture University on 3.12.70, in terms of the provisions of Section 39(19) of the Rajendra Agriculture University Act, 1971, he was appointed to the post of Senior Scientist-cum-Associate Professor (Chemistry) with effect from 1.4.75 on probation and 1.4.77 on permanent basis vide notification of the University dated 8.5.79. Later he was promoted to the post of Professor with effect from 2.3.79. 3. As per the Statute of the University the age of superannuation of teachers was 62 years. Under the scheme proposed by the University Grants Commission (U.G.C.) circulated by the Ministry of Human Resource Development on 22.7.88, which was made applicable to Rajendra Agriculture University by the State Government on 31.3.90, pay scales of the teachers were revised with effect from 1.1.86 with age of superannuation at 60 years. Option was, however, given to the teachers to elect between lower scales of pay with higher (existing) superannuation age of 62 years and higher scales of pay but lower superannuation age of 60 years. Clause 19 of the Scheme runs as follows :- "The existing teachers in Universities and Colleges where the Merit Promotion formulated by the UGC in 1983 or any other similar schemes are in operation will have an option to be governed by the provisions of those schemes provided that they exercise that option in writing prior to their pay fixation under this scheme" (Emphasis added) In terms of letter dated 31.3.90 aforesaid this option was to be exercised by them within 90 days from the date of the issue of the letter. The petitioner like many others did not exercise his option and thus, he was deemed to have opted for the revised UGC pay scale. 4. Since the age of superannuation as per the UGC pay scales was 60 years as against the age of superannuation prescribed in the Statute of the University at 62 years a dispute arose regarding the age of superannuation of teachers working from before. The matter was referred to the Board of Management of the University and later to the State Government. The matter was referred to the Board of Management of the University and later to the State Government. The State Government in course of time by its letter dated 13.10.1992 informed the University after consultation with the Government of India, that the age of superannuation of the teachers to whom the revised UGC pay scale had been given was 60 years. In the meantime while the matter was pending with the State Government an agreement was reached between the University and the Teachers representatives on 16.3.91 to allow such teachers who had not completed 60 years of age as on 1.1.86 to continue upto the age of 62 years but they were to be given pay in the UGC 'pay scale' upto the age of 60 years only whereafter they would continue to draw the same pay which was received by them on completion of 60 years without any increment. The decision of the University based on the aforementioned agreement was communicated by letter dated 20.3.1991. 5. The petitioner who was below 60 years of age as on 1.1.86 was accordingly allowed to continue even after attaining the age of 60 years. His pay in the UGC scale was fixed at Rs. 4950/- on 1.1.86 which increased after adding annual increments to Rs. 5100/- on 2.3.86, Rs. 5250/- on 2.3.87, Rs. 5400/- on 2.3.88. Rs. 5550/- on 2.3.89 and Rs. 5700/- on 2.3.90. It was be stated here that the petitioner attained the age of 60 years on 2.2.90 and, therefore, he was not allowed the next admissible increment due on 2.3.90. Although the petitioner has been allowed unutilised leave salary on the basis of the salary drawn by him as on 2.3.90 i.e. Rs. 5700/- his pension papers have been submitted to the University on the basis of the last basic pay drawn by him at Rs. 5550/-. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to annual increment in the UGC scale of Rs. 4500-150-5700-200-7300 upto the date of actual superannuation at the age of 62 years in February 1992 @ Rs. 5900/- and have his pension and other retirement dues fixed on that basis. 5550/-. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to annual increment in the UGC scale of Rs. 4500-150-5700-200-7300 upto the date of actual superannuation at the age of 62 years in February 1992 @ Rs. 5900/- and have his pension and other retirement dues fixed on that basis. In this application the petitioner has sought quashing of the aforesaid decision of the University dated 20.3.91 denying the benefit of the annual increment beyond the age of superannuation of 60 years as also a mandamus to the respondents to grant him pecuniary service benefits and fix his pension and other retirement dues accordingly. 6. The University has filed counter affidavit setting out the background in which the revised UGC pay scale was given to the teachers and the interim decision was taken allowing them to continue in service even beyond the age of superannuation as provided in the UGC scheme. During course of arguments, the University counsel fairly stated that the University has no objection to allowing the petitioner the benefit of annual increments, as was admissible in the old scale, even now, provided the petitioner agrees to forego the benefits of the revised UGC pay scale. Counsel for the petitioner did not respond to the offer. Understandably so, because the UGC pay scales by all accounts appear to be more attractive from the teachers' point of view. 7. The challenge to the decision of University dated 20.3.91 is wholly misconceived. As indicated above, the decision was the outcome of an agreement reached between the University and Teacher's Representatives on 16.3.91. By reason of the said decision those who were below 60 years of age on 1.1.86, the date on which the UGC scales of pay became effective, were allowed to continue even beyond the proposed age of superannuation of 60 years. The petitioner attained the age of 60 years on 2.2.90. In other words, as on the date of decision he was over 60 years of age. Although in terms of the UGC scheme he was not entitled to continue in service, he remained in service upto the age of 62 years i.e. upto February, 1992. There is no dispute that he has been paid salary on the basis of the pay drawn by him prior to attaining the age of 60 years. Although in terms of the UGC scheme he was not entitled to continue in service, he remained in service upto the age of 62 years i.e. upto February, 1992. There is no dispute that he has been paid salary on the basis of the pay drawn by him prior to attaining the age of 60 years. Obviously, he has derived benefit of the decision his continuance in service after February, 1990 was purely ad hoc. No doubt, in terms of the Statute of the University he could continue upto the age of 62 years but, as stated above, he will be deemed to have 'opted' for the revised scale and having done so he was not entitled to continue beyond 60 years. The implementation of the UGC scheme had undoubtedly brought about change in the service conditions. While on the one hand the new pay scales were more attractive, the age of superannuation was lower than before. It was open to the petitioner to opt for the old existing scale in which case he would have continued in service upto the age of 60 years as of right with the attending benefit of annual Increment upto that age (of superannuation). He, however, 'opted' for the new UGC scale obviously because they were more attractive. He cannot be allowed to have best of both. 8. A Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Jagdish Sahay vs. Rajendra Agriculture University (C.W.J.C. No. 375 of 1994, disposed of on 19.4.94), had occasion to consider paragraph 19 of the Scheme (supra) in the context of promotion of teachers of the same University. The following observations in paragraph 8 of the judgment may usefully be noticed : - "However, in terms of clause 19 of Appendix-I as referred to hereinbefore, it is absolutely clear that the concerned persons had to exercise their option within the time stipulated therein. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had exercised his option to continue in the old scale of pay. In view of the clear language used in clause (19) of Appendix-I there cannot be any doubt what-so-ever that if an employee does not exercise his option within the time stipulated therein he would be deemed to have opted for revised scale of pay. In view of the clear language used in clause (19) of Appendix-I there cannot be any doubt what-so-ever that if an employee does not exercise his option within the time stipulated therein he would be deemed to have opted for revised scale of pay. In such an event despite existence of the provision of provisional promotion in the statute framed by the University he was bound by the conditions referred to in the said Scheme. It is not also in dispute that under the old scheme the age of superannuation was 62 years whereas in the new scheme the age of superannuation is 60 years. Had the petitioner opted to continue to get benefit of the old scale of pay certainly the statute framed by University would have been applicable to his case. But the petitioner having opted out therefrom and thus by necessary implication having opted for scale of pay granted by Indian Council for Agriculture Research cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that he was entitled to be promoted even after the cut-off date, namely 1.2.1988." 9. I am in complete agreement with the above observation and interpretation of law. There can be no doubt that having opted for the UGC pay scale, due date of superannuation of teachers including the petitioner being 60 years, he cannot be entitled to annual increment as admissible in that scale of pay beyond that age. The question framed for consideration is answered accordingly. It would, accordingly, follow that pension and other retirement dues of the petitioner and other similarly situate persons have to be fixed on the basis of the last pay drawn by them on the date on which they attained the age of 60 years. The claim of the petitioner in this application is devoid of any substance. 10. This application is accordingly, dismissed. As the petitioner has retired from service, I would make no order as to costs. Narayan Roy, J. - I agree.