Judgment Shiva Kirti Singh, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, though this writ application, has claimed for grant of differential amount of gratuity on the basis of 35 years of service in terms of Article 5(ii) of the Statute for the grant of retirement benefits to the university employees dated 25.11.1982 which are in force from 14.11.1980. 3. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was earlier in Bihar Education Service where he admittedly joined the services on 19.11.1949. Subsequently, he has joined Magadh University as a University Professor in the Department of Botany with effect from 6.11.1969 and retired from the said post under Magadh University on 31.3.1984. During the aforesaid 14 years 2 months of service under Magadh University the petitioner had also proceeded to foreign service on two occasions once as Pro-Vice-Chancellor in the Patna University for about 2 years and 3 months during 1975 and 1977 and on another occasion as Vice Chancellor of Agricultural University for a period of about two years 11 months. The first dispute between the parties appeared to be on the issue whether the petitioner had opted for Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity Scheme or for GPF-cum-Gratuity-cum-Pension Scheme. Because of difference between the parties on this question of fact I looked into the original records produced by the learned Counsel for the University and from the said records I am satisfied that till the time of his retirement in 1984 the petitioner had opted for and accepted GPF-cum-Gratuity Scheme as is apparent from the application for final withdrawal from the Provident Fund account dated 8.2.84. 4. Subsequently, however, it appears that on account of certain relaxation in the cut-off date for option, on 25.6.95 the petitioner has submitted another form of option and opted for General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme. Admittedly before that date the petitioner had been paid the retirement dues as per the earlier option. Subsequently to his aforesaid option dated 25.6.95, the Finance Officer of the University through a letter dated 16.8.95 requested the petitioner to submit the details of pension and gratuity received for the period of services rendered by him in different Universities as a Proed Vice-Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor under the signature of Pay Department for calculation of exact amount of contribution to be refunded for exercise of option for GPF-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme. According to the University, and also its records, to the aforesaid letter of the Finance Officer of the University issued during pendency of the writ application the petitioner has not given any reply. 5. In my opinion, in view of the aforesaid facts specially the provision in the relevant Statute the University had rightly paid the retirement benefits of the petitioner as per Scheme then opted by him and hence no interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. However, from the facts noticed above as appearing from the records of the University it appears that the petitioners fresh option has been entertained by the University and its processing has not progressed further because of petitioner not having replied to the letter of the Finance Officer. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ application is finally disposed of with a direction to the University that in case the petitioner files a fresh representation and furnished the required particulars along with a copy of this judgment, then his case for re-option and payment of further retirement dues, if any, must be processed and finalised within a period of six months from the date of such representation and if any further amount is found to be due, the same must be paid to the petitioner within two months thereafter. 6. With the aforesaid direction this writ application is finally disposed of.