JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has approached this court with a prayer to declare Regulation 4(Ja)(2) of the Board of Secondary Rajasthan (sic Education ?) Employees Pension Regulations 1990 and to quash the orders whereby the petitioner was not allowed to change his option. 2. In exercise of powers conferred under section 21(4) and 36(1) of the Rajasthan Secondary Education Act, 1957 the respondent Board of Secondary Eduation (for short the Board) framed Board of Secondary Rajasthan (sic Education ?) Employees Pension Regulations 1990 (for short the pension regulations). The said regulations were made effective from April 1, 1990. Prior to promulgation of aforesaid Pension Regulations only the Provident Fund Scheme was prevailing in the Board. Employees who entered in the services of the Board on or after April 1, 1990 were automatically covered under the Pension Regulations. The Board vide letter dated Feb. 27, 1991 (Ex 1) has given an option to its employees who were already in service on April 1, 1990 either to retain the benefits of the Provident Fund or to switch over to pensionary benefits. Option once submitted was to be treated as final in view of proviso to Regulation 4 Qa) (2) of the Pension Regulations which provides that option once exercised by the employee shall be treated as final. Admittedly the petitioner vide his letter dated May 18, 1991 (Ex. R/1) opted to continue under Provident Fund benefit scheme. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that restricting the option for one time only through proviso to Regulation 4 (Ja) (2) is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and as such the decision Annexures 4, 6 and 8 taken in pursuance thereof in not allowing the petitioner to change his option are also null and void and liable to set aside. It was canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that proviso to Regulation 40a) (2) is unreasonable, unfair and unjust in view of Rule 168 of the Rajasthan Service Rules (for short the RSR) under which decisions were taken by the State of Rajasthan to provide one after another opportunity of option to the State Government employees. Rule 168 of the R.S.R. is applicable to the petitioner by virtue of Regulation 40 of the Pension Regulations. Rule 168 of the R.S.R. is applicable to the petitioner by virtue of Regulation 40 of the Pension Regulations. Placing reliance on (1) Ashok Chand Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur ( 1989 (1) SCC 399 ) it was urged that the petitioner cannot be estopped from submitting another option. 4. It was contended on behalf of the Board that PF account holder and Pension Scheme holder constitute different class of persons and no person has a right to switch over from Provident Fund Scheme to Pension Scheme or vice versa. The petitioner was given three months time to submit his option and he opted to continue in PF scheme, therefore he is estopped from changing it. Reliance was placed on (1) Krishna Kumar v. U.O.I. ( 1990 (4) SCC 207 ) and (2) State of Rajasthan v. Rajasthan Pensioner Samaj (1991 Supp. (2) SCC 141) . 5. Learned counsel for the Board urged that in the Pension Regulations it was postulated that person who would like to avail benefit of pension will be retired on attaining age of 58 years whereas those who would continue in Provident Fund Scheme will serve upto 60 years. Looking to this benefit the petitioner had opted to continue under Provident Fund benefit scheme. Even after attaining the age of 58 years the petitioner has been continuing in the services and having availed this benefit the petitioner is estopped from submitting another option. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that Provident Fund Scheme and Pension Scheme both are beneficial schemes for the employees and Central Government and State Government and Universities are promulgating Pension Scheme giving option to their employees for opting Pension Scheme. Under the circumstances proviso to Regulation 4(Ja)(2) of the Pension Regulations should be declared ultravires. My attention was invited towards Regulation 40 and 168 of RSR. 6. 1 have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 7. A look at the letter dated Feb. 27, 1991 (Ex.1) issued by Board demonstrates that the petitioner had to exercise option till May 27, 1991. Three months time was more than sufficient for exercising option in respect of retaining P.F. benefits or for switch over to pensionary benefits. The petitioner vide his letter dated May, 18, 1991 (Ex. R/1) opted for P.F. benefits with free will and open mind. Three months time was more than sufficient for exercising option in respect of retaining P.F. benefits or for switch over to pensionary benefits. The petitioner vide his letter dated May, 18, 1991 (Ex. R/1) opted for P.F. benefits with free will and open mind. In my considered opinion the petitioner after availing the benefits of service and the P.F. Scheme, is estopped from challenging the constitutionality of proviso to Regulation 4Qa)(2) of the Pension Regulations. Even otherwise I do not see any unreasonableness in the said provision which provides that option once exercised by the employee shall be treated as final. The employees cannot be permitted to act with two minds. Ratio of Ashok Chand Singhvi's case (supra) and Rule 168 of RSR are not applicable with facts of the instant case. Regulation 4(Ja)(2) of the Pension Regulations cannot be declared unconstitutional on the ground of inconvenience to the petitioner. 8. I do not see any merit in the writ petition, it is accordingly dismissed. Costs easy.Petition dismissed. *******