Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. As in both the writ applications the question involved is common, with consent of parties, they have been heard together for final disposal. 2. The petitioners, who retired from the service of the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation on 31-1-1986 and 1-2-1986 respectively, are aggrieved by the denial of pension to them as per the provisions of the Patna Municipal Corporation Officers and Servants Pension, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) made applicable to the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation, vide notification dated 1-3-1988 of the State Government (Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit) in exercise of the power u/s. 4 of the Bihar Municipal Corporation Act, 1978. 3. The Rules framed by Notification No. 396 dated 5th March, 1987 applied to all permanent employees of the Corporation and by virtue of Rule, 3, the said Rule came into force with effect from 1st January, 1986 AD. As per the provisions contained in Rule 4 (i), the Corporation employees on roll on the date of confirmation of the rule and who had subscribed to the contributory provident fund under P.M.C. employee provident fund rules and wanted to be governed by the Rules had been given option to do so and such option was to be exercised in writing in prescribed from and submitted to the Chief Executive Officer within 90 days from the date of framing of the rules by the State Government. It was made clear that if such option in writing in prescribed form is not received with the period so fixed, it will be deemed that they would retain the existing contributory provident fund. Further, Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 4 of the Rules provided that the Corporation employees who retired before the date of effect of the rule and had received part or whole amount of the provident fund contribution would not be eligible for the pension. 4. The petitioners were in the service of the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation and retired even before the said rule was made applicable to the employees of the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation, vide Notification dated 1-3-1988, referred to above. Thus, obviously they could not exercised option as per the said Rule before it was made applicable to the employees, of the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation and undisputedly received all the benefits, including the providentfund amount. Thus, obviously they could not exercised option as per the said Rule before it was made applicable to the employees, of the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation and undisputedly received all the benefits, including the providentfund amount. However, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, by the Government notification dated 1-3-1988, the Rule has been made applicable to the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation with only adaptation and modification that in place of the word "Patna", "Bhagalpur" should be read in the said Rule. As such, by virtue of Rule 3 it would be deemed to have come into force with effect from 1 st January, 1986 in the case of the employees of the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation also and as the petitioners retired thereafter, they are entitled for the benefit of grant of pension under the said Rule. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Parmeshwar Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that since the Rule has been made applicable to the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation by notification dated 1-3-1988 and the petitioners retired much before the said date, they cannot get the benefit of the Rules. Further he submitted that since the petitioners after retirement have already received all the benefits, including the provident fund amount, they are not eligible for the benefit of grant of pension under Rule 4(ii) of the Rules, which provides that the Corporation employees who retired before the date of effect of the Rule and have received the part or whole amount of Provident Fund Contribution will not be eligible for the pension. 6. In reply, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is true that the petitioners received the payment of the provident fund but that was under the circumstances that the Corporation was not ready to implement Pension Rules. According to the learned Counsel, the petitioners cannot be denied of the benefit of pension under the statutory provisions, the effective date of which is prior to their date of retirement and they exercised their option also soon after the provisions of the Rules were made applicable to the employees of the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation by notification dated 1-3-1988. 7. I am unable to accept the said submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The notification dated 1-3-1988 (Annexure-A) itself mentions that Rule is made applicable to the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation and does not provide for its applicability from retrospective date. 7. I am unable to accept the said submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The notification dated 1-3-1988 (Annexure-A) itself mentions that Rule is made applicable to the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation and does not provide for its applicability from retrospective date. It is true that by virtue of Rule 3 of the Rules, which applied to all permanent employees of the Patna Municipal Corporation, the said Rule came into force with effect from 1st January, 1986, but I find it difficult to accept that though the said Rule has been made applicable to the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation by notification dated 1-3-1988 without giving effect to it from retrospective date, by virtue of the said provision the Rule will be deemed to have come into effect from the same date in the case of the employees of the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation also. The very wording of the notification dated 1-3-1988 (Annexure-A) shows that the Rule is made applicable to the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation and thus the effective date of the Rule is the date of notification i.e., 1-3-1988. Any other interpretation would lead to absurdity. If the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that by virtue of Rule 3, the Rules will be deemed to be applicable with effect from 1 st January, 1986 in the case of the employees of the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation, then the requirement of Rule 4 of the Rules, under which the employees were to exercise option within 90 days from the date of framing of the said Rule, cannot be complied as it was/is not possible in the case of the employees of the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation for whom the Rule has been made applicable by notification dated 1-3-1988. Further, this Court does not find any merit in the writ applications as under Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 4 of the Rules, the petitioners are not eligible for the pension as it is not disputed that they have already received the provident fund contribution before the said Rule was made applicable to the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation. 8. Both the writ applications are, thus, dismissed, but without costs.