P. KRISHNA MOORTHY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner joined the University of Agricultural Sciences, bangalore, as a Professor in Micro-Biology on 14-9-1973. He was posted to the College situated in Dharwad. He retired from services on 30-6-1989. Under the University of Agricultural sciences Act, Provident Fund Scheme was in force. Thereafter, by virtue of the Statute of 1982 framed by the Bangalore agricultural University, the employees like the petitioner were given option to opt for the Pension Scheme. The option has to be exercised within three months from 10-6-1982, but the petitioner gave his option only on 31-7-1985 and accordingly, his option was rejected as belated. So, the petitioner was continuing under the Provident Fund Scheme. While so, on 1-10-1986, an agricultural University was constituted at Dharwad and the services of the petitioner and other members of the Staff working in place coming within the jurisdiction of that University were transferred to the Agricultural University, Dharwad. By virtue of the Statutory provisions, the statutes framed by the agricultural University, Bangalore, was to continue till statutes are framed by the Dharwad Agricultural University. The agricultural University, Dharwad, promulgated the statutes on 27-12-1988. Statute 68 provided for an option to the employees to opt for pension; Employees who are governed by the Provident fund Scheme to opt for pension scheme within three months from the date of promulgation of statutes. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an Option Form on 20-1-1989 evidenced by annexure 'a'. Annexure 'b' is the covering letter to Annexure 'a' by which, the petitioner requested the University to arrange for the processing of his pension papers as early as possible as he was to retire from the University on 30-6-1989. On 30-6-1989, the petitioner wrote to the respondent-University by Annexure 'c' to kindly arrange the payment of DCRG for the period for which pension is sanctioned. By Annexure 'd', dated 2-8-1989, respondent informed the petitioner that his pension papers have been sent to the Comptroller for taking further action in the matter. Annexure 'e', dated 10-8-1990 is the reminder sent by the petitioner as also Annexures 'f', 'g' and 'h', dated 2-8-1991, 20-8-1991 and 6-4-1992. Again the petitioner wrote a reminder on 13-6-1992. By Annexure 'd', dated 2-8-1989, respondent informed the petitioner that his pension papers have been sent to the Comptroller for taking further action in the matter. Annexure 'e', dated 10-8-1990 is the reminder sent by the petitioner as also Annexures 'f', 'g' and 'h', dated 2-8-1991, 20-8-1991 and 6-4-1992. Again the petitioner wrote a reminder on 13-6-1992. The complaint of the petitioner is that, though more than 3 years have elapsed from the date of his retirement, the respondent-University has neglected to settle his pensionary benefits and make payment of the same inspite of his repeated requests. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-University to settle the pensionary benefits of the petitioner and other benefits to which he is entitled to. ( 2 ) THE respondent-University has filed an objection statement dated 14-9-1992. In the statement of objections, it was contended that the petitioner having opted for contributory provident fund scheme, he will continue to abide by the terms of the provident fund scheme. At the time when the petitioner's services were transferred to the respondent-University, he was governed by the Provident Fund Scheme. According to the respondent University, the benefit of Statute 68 which provides for pension can be extended only to employees who joined the services of the university and who are appointed under those Statutes and that the persons like the petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefit of new statutes framed by the Dharwad Agricultural University. An additional statement of objections have also been filed, in which, it is contended that, under Statute 62 of the Statutes, they are applicable only to whole-time employees employed under the said Statutes. The petitioner having not been employed under the said statute, none of the provisions of the statutes are applicable to him and therefore, he cannot claim any benefit under Statute 68 of the respondent-University. It is further contended that, in the option submitted by the petitioner, he has not specifically mentioned having opted for pension scheme and therefore, the case of the petitioner that he had opted for the pension scheme is not correct. It is further contended, that, at any rate, the Dharwad Agricultural university came into being on 1-10-1986 and he should have exercised his option within three months from that date. It is further contended, that, at any rate, the Dharwad Agricultural university came into being on 1-10-1986 and he should have exercised his option within three months from that date. On this ground, they resisted the claim of the petitioner and contended that he is not entitled to claim the pensionary benefit, but he is only entitled to the provident fund. ( 3 ) ON the above pleadings, two points arise for consideration in this writ petition, viz. , (i) Whether the petitioner has made proper option for the pension scheme; and (ii) Whether the petitioner can avail of the option given under Statute 68 promulgated by the Dharwad agricultural University and claim pension? ( 4 ) POINT No. 1: The first question to be decided is as to whe ther the petitioner has opted for the pension scheme in accordance with the Statute 68. The original option statement submitted by the petitioner was placed before me and on going through the same, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner had opted to come over to the University Pension scheme. The option has to be exercised in Form-1 and it is seen that the petitioner has tick marked against the sentence "come over to the University Pension Scheme". The words "continue in university Provident Fund Scheme" is seen scored off by the petitioner. Moreover, the authorities also understood the petitioner as having been opted for the pension scheme is clear from the sentence found below the words counter signature in the option form and it is to the following effect: "he has opted for University Pension Scheme" it is attested by two Professors in the University. Moreover, annexure 'b' is a covering letter sent along with Annexure 'a', option statement on the same day. That also would indicate that the petitioner had opted for pension scheme. In the covering letter, the petitioner states as follows: "as per the above act notified on 27-10-1988 and in continuation of my application for option cited above, I request you to kindly arrange processing of pension papers as early as possible, since I would be retiring from UAS on 30-6-1989. I am enclosing 4 copies of Form No. 1 as indicated in the above cited amended statutes. " this covering letter was sent along with the Option Form and it would make absolutely clear that the petitioner opted for the pension scheme. I am enclosing 4 copies of Form No. 1 as indicated in the above cited amended statutes. " this covering letter was sent along with the Option Form and it would make absolutely clear that the petitioner opted for the pension scheme. The Option Form has to be read along with this letter and if so read, there cannot be any doubt that the petitioner opted for the pension scheme. Accordingly, I hold point No. 1 in favour of the petitioner. ( 5 ) POINT No. 2: The next point to be considered is as to whe ther the petitioner is entitled to opt for the pension scheme under the statutes promulgated by the Dharwad Agricultural university. In order to decide the case, it will be necessary to trace the history of the Agricultural University in Karnataka state and the relevant statutory provisions. The University of agricultural Sciences was formed by the University of agricultural Sciences Act, 1963. The Agricultural University, bangalore, was formed by the aforesaid Act. By Section 7 of the act, the College of Agriculture, Dharwad, the College of agriculture, Hebbal and the Mysore Veterinary College, Hebbal were dis-affiliated from the Karnataka University or the university of Mysore and were affiliated to the Agricultural university from such date as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette specify and the Agricultural university was formed by taking over the management of the colleges mentioned above. While so, in 1986, the University Act was amended and by Section 3 (1) (A), it was provided that the agricultural University, Bangalore shall cease to have territorial jurisdiction over the area comprising the Districts of Belgaum, bellary, Bidar, Bijapur, Dharwad, Gulbarga, Raichur and Uttara kannada and the name of the University was changed as university of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore. Section 3 (1) (A) (b) provides that there shall be established a University of agricultural Sciences called as the University of Agricultural sciences, Dharwad, having territorial jurisdiction over the area comprised in the Districts mentioned above. This came into force on 1-10-1986 and from that date, a separate Dharwad agricultural University came into existence. Section 3 (1) (A) (b) provides that there shall be established a University of agricultural Sciences called as the University of Agricultural sciences, Dharwad, having territorial jurisdiction over the area comprised in the Districts mentioned above. This came into force on 1-10-1986 and from that date, a separate Dharwad agricultural University came into existence. Section 7-A was introduced in the amendment Act and under sub-clause (c) of section 7-A every teacher and other employees of the Bangalore agricultural University and serving in or attached to any of the institutions situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the university of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, were transferred to the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad. Thus, the petitioner became an employee under the Dharwad University. Under sub-clause (b) of Section 13 of Karnataka Act 14 of 1986, it was provided that the respondent-University shall also be governed by the Statutes and Regulations of the Bangalore agricultural University until the Dharwad Agricultural university makes its own statutes and regulations. The dharwad University promulgated its statutes on 28-12-1988 and till then, the persons like the petitioner were governed by the earlier statutes of 1982 framed by the Bangalore Agricultural University. ( 6 ) IN the Statute framed by the University of Agricultural sciences, Bangalore, Chapter XI provided for Pension, Gratuity and Family Pension Fund. Under Section 68 of the Statute, persons like the petitioner had to exercise their option within three months to come over the pension scheme. The petitioner made his option belatedly and accordingly, his option for pension was rejected by the Bangalore Agricultural University, thereafter, with effect from 1-10-1986, his services were transferred to the Dharwad University and he was governed by the Contributory Fund Scheme when his services were transferred to the respondent-University. With effect from 28-12-1988, the statutes of the respondent-University came into force and option were given to certain employees to come over to the pension scheme. The question is as to whether the petitioner will be entitled to avail of the option given to the employees under the Statute of the respondent-University. ( 7 ) CHAPTER XI of Dharwad Agricultural University statutes deals with Pension, Gratuity and Family Pension Fund. It is verbatim reproduction of the provisions contained in 1982 statutes framed by the Bangalore Agricultural University. Statute 62 of 1988 Statute provides that they are applicable to the whole-time employees of the University Agricultural sciences. ( 7 ) CHAPTER XI of Dharwad Agricultural University statutes deals with Pension, Gratuity and Family Pension Fund. It is verbatim reproduction of the provisions contained in 1982 statutes framed by the Bangalore Agricultural University. Statute 62 of 1988 Statute provides that they are applicable to the whole-time employees of the University Agricultural sciences. It further provides that it shall come into effect with effect from 1-7-1981. Accordingly, it is to be taken that these statutes came into force from 1-7-1981. Statute 63 provides for the payment of pension to the employees transferred under section 7 of the University Agricultural Sciences Act, 1963. Statute 64 deals with the pension payable to employees appointed in the University under Government Orders dated 13-6-1966 and 8-12-1967. Statute 66 provides for pensionary benefits to the employees who have rendered services in any department/s of the Government of Karnataka/central government/icar or in any other Universities in India or statutory Bodies in Karnataka. Statute 67 provides for pension to certain types of employees who were appointed in the university after the age of 30 and who has rendered services in any Government Department, etc. , Statute 68 is the relevant statute which according to the petitioner, governs his case. Before referring to that Statute, it is worthwhile to note Statute 69 which deals with the pension payable to persons appointed under the statutes or after the introduction of the pension scheme. Now, Statute 68 reads as follows: "the employees who are governed by the Contributory provident Fund will have to exercise option either to the provident Fund or the Pension Scheme under these statutes. Such of the employees who exercise option in favour of the Pension Scheme subscriptions of the employees towards the University contributory provident fund with accrued interest upto the date of option will be transferred to the General Provident Fund Account with the University and they should continue to subscribe at not less than 10 per cent of their basic pay. The University contribution with accrued interest in this behalf, will be credited to the pension fund. Option should be exercised in form I and within three months from the date of promulgation of these Statutes. Option once exercised is final and irrevocable". The University contribution with accrued interest in this behalf, will be credited to the pension fund. Option should be exercised in form I and within three months from the date of promulgation of these Statutes. Option once exercised is final and irrevocable". From a reading of Statute 68, it is clear that a provision is made therein to give an option to the employees who are governed by the Contributory Provident Fund to come over to the Pension scheme. It further provides that the option should be exercised in Form-1 within three months from the date of promulgation of these statutes. The question to be decided is as to whether the option provided for in this statute will apply to the persons like the petitioners who were transferred from Bangalore Agricultural university and were governed by the Contributory Provident fund when they were transferred to the respondent-University. ( 8 ) ON going through the various provisions in the Statute dealing with pension, I am clearly of the view that the employees like the petitioner are also entitled to opt for the pension scheme notwithstanding that they did not exercise the option under the statutes framed by the Bangalore Agricultural University in 1982. The fact that by Statute 62, the Statute regarding pension was made retrospective with effect from 1-7-1981 will not affect the right of the petitioner nor the statement in Statute 62 that they are applicable to employees employed under this statute. When the services of the petitioner were transferred in 1986, by virtue of Section 7-A it shall be deemed that such employees shall also be governed by the statutes promulgated by the dharwad Agricultural University. Statute 63 provides for pension to the class of employees who were transferred under section 7 to the Agricultural University Act and who were the erstwhile employees working in the Colleges mentioned in that section. Statute 64 deals with employees appointed under two government orders dated 13-6-1966 and 8th December, 1967. Statute 66 provides for pensionary benefits to the employees who have rendered services in certain other Departments. Statute 67 applies to persons appointed in the University after the age of 30 and who have rendered services in any Government Department of the Karnataka State or Central Government, etc. So also statute 69 applies to persons appointed under the Statute after introduction of the pension scheme in the University. Statute 67 applies to persons appointed in the University after the age of 30 and who have rendered services in any Government Department of the Karnataka State or Central Government, etc. So also statute 69 applies to persons appointed under the Statute after introduction of the pension scheme in the University. Thus, provision is made in the Statute for all types of employees of dharwad University. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the pension scheme introduced by 1988 Statutes are not applicable to the employees who were transferred under Section 7-A of the Act. I am not inclined to agree with this contention, for, otherwise, Statute 68 will become nugatory. As stated earlier, all types of employees were dealt with under various provisions in Chapter-XI of the Statute which I have already referred to. When we come to Statute 68, we see that it applies to employees who are governed by Contributory provident Fund. Different types of employees having been provided for in the other statutes in Chapter-XI, Statute 68 can apply only to the transferred employees who were transferred from the Bangalore Agricultural University under Section 7-A of the Act. If it is not so interpreted, no purpose will be served by Statute 68 and the provision become otiose. The type of employees for whom provision is made under Statute 68 are the employees transferred from Bangalore Agricultural University. It clearly provides that they are entitled to make their option within three months from the date of promulgation of statutes. Note-the option has to be exercised not from the date of coming into force of the Statutes but from the date of promulgation. So, the mere fact that the statutes are deemed to have come into force from 1-7-1981 cannot be the starting point, for exercising the option but the starting point is the date of promulgation. It is well-settled that the date of promulgation means, the date on which it is made known to the public. The statutes were published on 28-12-1988 and that alone can be the date of promulgation. It is well-settled that the date of promulgation means, the date on which it is made known to the public. The statutes were published on 28-12-1988 and that alone can be the date of promulgation. The petitioner having exercised his option within three months from that date, it has to be held that the petitioner has opted for the pension scheme and that he shall be governed by the pension scheme of the respondent-University and he will be entitled to be paid the pension and other benefits in accordance with the statute. In the result, I allow this writ petition and direct the respondent-University to settle the pensionary benefits of the petitioner and all other benefits to which he is entitled to and make payment of the same forthwith. The parties shall bear their costs in this writ petition. --- *** --- .