Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.6.2004 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5019 of 2004, by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the prayer of the writ petitioner-respondent and directed to continue to pay pension to him on the, ground that there is a mention of the fact that he is entitled to be governed by the G.P.F.-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme in the file maintained by the University as per statement made in paragraph 25 of the writ petition. 2. The factual matrix for disposal of the present appeal are that, admittedly, the writ petitioner-respondent joined the University on the post of Calligraphist and, thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Section Officer and superannuated from service on 31.1.2000. The Chancellor approved the Statute (Triple Benefit Scheme) for grant of retirement benefit to the employees of the University on 18.11.1980 and some amendments were also made in the same, which came into effect from the date of amendment of the Statute. Under the Statute, the employees were required to file their option as to whether they will take the benefit of Group A, which provides for G.P.F.-cum-Pension-cum-Gratu- ity or they will take benefit of Group B, which provides for Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity. The Statute further provided that if no option is exercised within time as mentioned, the period will be treated to have opted for the benefit under Group A1. 3. The case of the writ petitioner-respondent is that he could not exercise option within time and as such his case is to be governed by Group A and is entitled to pension etc. 4. The stand of the University, on the other hand, from the very beginning was that on 31.1.1983 within time prescribed for exercising option, the writ petitioner-respondent applied for Group B and, accordingly, he is not entitled to the benefit under Group A. 5. In the writ petition, the writ petitioner-respondent asserted that he was paid pension after retirement, but later on it was stopped by the University on the ground that he has opted for Contributory Provident-Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme (Group B). He further stated in paragraph no. 25 of the petition that he could not exercise option within time and as such he is governed by Group A i.e. G.P.F.-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme. 6. He further stated in paragraph no. 25 of the petition that he could not exercise option within time and as such he is governed by Group A i.e. G.P.F.-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme. 6. The appellants filed a counter affidavit, wherein, they categorically stated in paragraph 6 that the writ petitioner-respondent has exercised his option in favour of Group B of the Scheme i.e. Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity on 31.1.1983 and as such he is not entitled to the benefit of Group A i.e. General Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity. 7. The writ petitioner-respondent filed a reply to the aforesaid averment made in paragraph no. 6 of the counter affidavit. In paragraph 4 of the reply, he has stated that the respondent authorities had specifically mentioned in the pension file that the case of the petitioner is to be governed by Group A. In paragraph 5, he stated that he is not able to recollect his memory that when and under what Scheme the petitioner had exercised his option. 8. The learned Single Judge, taking into account the aforesaid assertion of the writ petitioner and also the fact that the option paper was not annexed with the counter-affidavit filed by the University-respondent denying the aforesaid assertion, allowed the claim of the writ petitioner-respondent. 9. In this appeal, the appellant have annexed the option exercised by the writ petitioner-respondent on 31.1.1983 as Annexure 1, which clearly shows that he has opted for Group B. In the counter-affidavit filed by the writ petitioner-respondent, he has also filed the same document but has come out with a new case that he filed the option in May, 1983 i.e. beyond the expiry of the period and not before that. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-University submitted that in view of the categorical statement made by the University that he had opted for benefit under Group B and he did not deny the said fact but only stated that he did not recollect his memory when it was filed, the University did not produce the original option paper. However, had any direction been given by the learned Single Judge to that effect, the University would have produced the same, but on that ground the claim of the writ petitioner-respondent cannot be allowed, specially when he has taken a vacillating stand at different stages of the proceeding. 11. However, had any direction been given by the learned Single Judge to that effect, the University would have produced the same, but on that ground the claim of the writ petitioner-respondent cannot be allowed, specially when he has taken a vacillating stand at different stages of the proceeding. 11. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent, on the other hand, sub-mitted that the option paper has been created by the University and as such the same is forged and fabricated document. 12. No foundation has been laid down by the writ petitioner-respondent except to show from the option paper that it is only mentioned 31.5. at the bottom of the paper, which is neither just by the side of the signature or against any entry. That entry may be either by the office or for any other reason. However, on that basis, in our view, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that it was filed beyond time specially when the said stand of the writ petitioner was not before the learned Single Judge and has been taken at this stage, which is belated one. 12.A. It is not a personal fight between the writ petitioner-respondent and the appellant-University and the University and its officers have no compelling reasons to create a document specially when they came out with a case that it was filed on 31.1.1983 from the very beginning in the counter-affidavit, whereas, the stand of the writ petitioner at this stage that it was a created document, is belated one. 13. We have no reason to disbelieve the stand taken by the University from the very beginning that the writ petitioner-respondent had opted for benefit under Group B and as such now he cannot be allowed to take a different stand and claim more beneficial scheme (Group A) under the Triple Benefit Scheme. 14. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and this appeal is allowed.