Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Instant petition has been filed against order dated 25.06.1991 (Annexure-11) passed by Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Rajasthan Jaipur (Tribunal). 2. Facts, in brief , leading to the petition are that R.N. Khanna (now deceased) respondent (employee) initially entered in Central Government Service in the year 1950 on his appointment as X-ray Technician in Victoria Hospital, Ajmer in erstwhile State of Ajmer, and after its merger, on 011.1956 he was absorbed in service of the Government of Rajasthan on the post of Mistri which he held in erstwhile State. Thereafter a gazetted post of Electro Medical Technician was advertised by Rajasthan Public Service Commission for being filled by direct recruitment, to which he applied and participated in selection process and on his selection, was appointed on the recommendation of the Commission in the year 1959. On abolition of the post of Electro Medical Technician in 1963, he was absorbed as Senior Foreman in State Health Transport Organisation under Medical and Health Department. 3. In view of his selection by Commission, respondent became an employee of State Government and as per State Government Service Rules, respondent retired on 312.1978 from the post of Senior Foreman on attaining age of superannuation, which was 55 years at that time. But he was not paid retrial benefits for services which he rendered in Government of Rajasthan and became due under Rajasthan Civil Service Rules, 1951; as such he approached this Court by way of filing CWP No. 809/1987 wherein after hearing the parties, this Court vide order dated 17.09.1987 (Annexure-6) finally directed the instant petitioner to fix the pension and amount of gratuity payable to the employee, alongwith interest @ 12% per annum on the arrears payable towards pension and gratuity. Indisputably, in compliance of aforesaid direction, his retiral dues for the services rendered in State of Rajasthan were paid to him as is evident from order dated 012.1988 (Annexure-10) whereby this Court disposed of Contempt Petition No. 197/88 after recording as under:- “It appears that in compliance of order passed by this Court on 17.09.1987, a sum of Rs. 10,34,348.60 has been paid to petitioner on 21.09.1988. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the amount payable is Rs. 11,418.81. It is not the scope of the contempt petition to go into the details of actual amount payable in pursuance of the orders of the Court. 10,34,348.60 has been paid to petitioner on 21.09.1988. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the amount payable is Rs. 11,418.81. It is not the scope of the contempt petition to go into the details of actual amount payable in pursuance of the orders of the Court. In the circumstances, no further action is called for and the proceedings are dropped. Notices discharged.” After accepting full and final retiral dues in terms of earlier orders of this Court, respondent filed Appeal No. 29/88 before Tribunal with the grievance that since his option was not accepted by the Government, as such Central Government Pension Rules were applicable as enforced on 011.1956 in erstwhile State of Ajmer and as per which he was entitled to continue in service upto 58 years of age and he ought to have been retired on 312.1981. Since no reply was filed, the Tribunal proceeded on said premise and allowed the appeal vide order dated 25.06.1991 (Annexure-11) with the direction to State Government (petitioner) to treat respondent employee in service upto 312.1981 and pay all consequential benefits including retiral benefits while treating him employee of Central Government in view of the fact that his option was not accepted by State Government. Hence this petition. 4. Counsel for the State contends that there was no occasion to call for option in facts and circumstances of present case, when petitioner himself faced direct recruitment for the post of Electro Medical Technician advertised by the Commission of State Government and on his selection, he joined the State service in the year 1959; as such question of applicability of Central Pension Rules thereafter does not arise and especially when respondent employee himself has approached this Court by way of CWP No. 809/1987 treating himself an employee of State Government claiming retiral dues payable under RSR, which too were paid under direction of this Court; in such facts situation, approaching afresh by way of appeal before Tribunal for treating employee of Central Government, so as to entitle to continue in service upto December, 1981, was in no manner tenable; and the finding recorded by Tribunal is not even supported by material on record. Counsel for the State further contends that once respondent employee accepted all benefits as an employee of State Government, approaching the Tribunal afresh by way of appeal is an after-though and was barred by principle of res judicata particularly in view of his own case in earlier writ petition (Supra). 5. Respondent has filed reply to writ petition wherein it has been inter alia averred that though respondent was always considered himself as employee of State Government but only after he was served with communication from their office as is evident from document dated 07.05.1987 (Annexure-9) that since no such option has been accepted by State Government, he considered himself to be employee of Central Government and, therefore, was entitled to get all benefits admissible under Central Service Rules. 6. Counsel for respondent employee urged that it is the case of the State, itself that option of respondent employee has not been accepted as a consequence whereof , he continued as employee being governed by Central Pension Rules as it stood on 011.1956 as such, no error was committed by Tribunal to treat him in service upto 312.1981 on attaining 58 years’ age of superannuation, and for grant of salary besides retiral dues under Central Service Rules by passing impugned herein. 7. I have considered contentions of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance examined material on record. This fact remains undisputed that petitioner after merger of erstwhile State of Ajmer in State of Rajasthan with effect from 011.1956 appointed after undergoing process of selection in the year 1959 on the post of Electro Medical Technician, as a consequence whereof , he became employee of State Government and till he attained age of superannuation, all benefits under RSR were extended to him and even it is his own case pleaded in CWP No. 809/87 (Annexure-4) Para 6 that he submitted an affidavit on demand by the Department that he had submitted his option for Rajasthan Pension Rules on 07.03.1977 xerox copy whereof was enclosed alongwith affidavit and in this view of matter, that he was entitled for benefits flowing from Rajasthan Service Rules on attaining age of superannuation and full pension and other retiral dues were paid under orders of this Court. 8. 8. However, communication dated 07.05.1987 (Annexure-9) which was made a sole basis for re-agitating the issue, was of no consequence in fact, once respondent employee stood absorbed in Government of Rajasthan service and after taking all benefits including retiral dues, his plea whatever raised elsewhere was not available for him to say that in absence of his option being accepted, his services were entitled to be governed by Central Pension Rules as prevalent in erstwhile State of Ajmer on 011.1956. 9. Very premise on which the Tribunal had proceeded to examine dispute afresh in light of letter dated 07.05.1987 (Annexure-9) and to allow for retiral benefits as per Central Service Rules upto 58 years’ age of superannuation, in my opinion, is totally perverse and is not supported by any legal evidence on record. Thus viewed, impugned order (Annexure-11) passed by Tribunal is not sustainable. 10. Consequently this writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and impugned order dated 25.06.1991 (Annexure-11) of Tribunal is quashed and set aside. However, it is made clear that if any payments were made to the legal heirs of the deceased in pursuance of order impugned dated 25.06.1991 the same shall not be recovered from them. No order as to costs.