JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the relief to quash the impugned order Annex. 6 dated 20.12.1999 and directing the respondents to allow her pension treating her application as an option for the pension. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that 5 Petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Kooli on 1.1.1975 and retired on 30.6.1987. After retirement, she made an application to the respondents for grant of pension and made various representations but to no avail. Ultimately, the respondents issued the order dated 20.12.1999 rejecting his application on the ground that she is a beneficiary of C.PF. and hence not to entitled for pension. She again made an application for consideration of her Pension case in the light of the judgment of this Court in SBCWP No. 72/1994, Smt. Sajjan Kumari v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 9.8.1997 but the same did not find support. Hence the writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. It is well settled law that pension is not a bounty to be payable at the Sweet will or grace of the employer, rather it is a legal right enforceable Trough the Courts of Law. Grant of pension does not depend upon anyone's discretion. An employee becomes entitle for pension on completing the minimum qualifying service for grant of pension. 5. In the instant case, the petitioner accepted the C.P.F. She has specifically stated in para No. 6 of the writ petition that in the year 1985, she had submitted an option for availing the pensionary benefits but the respondent No. 3 returned the same at that time. Answering this stand, the respondents have come with the case that she did not submit any option and had the option been submitted by her, she would not have accepted C.P.F./G.P.F. Be that as it may, the stand taken by the respondents has no relevance as the benefit of C.P.F. might have been accepted by the petitioner in dire need of financial assistance and her acceptance was merely a "Hob son's choice". Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is prepared to refund the amount received by her as C.P.F. amount along with interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is prepared to refund the amount received by her as C.P.F. amount along with interest. Thus, even treating her application as the "option for pension", the respondents may accommodate the amount paid to her in C.P.F. account while determining the pension case of the petitioner. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned Annex. P 6 dated 20.12.1999 is quashed. The petitioner is held entitled to get pension it to she deposit the amount of C.P.F. along with interest. The respondents are directed to decide her pension case at an earliest occasion. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******