JUDGMENT Honble D.P. Singh, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.K.S. Chauhan for the respondents. 2. Pleadings are complete and the Counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be finally disposed off under the Rules of the Court. 3. The petitioner seeks a mandate to the respondent Corporation to treat him as an optee of General Provident Fund and pay him dues accordingly, including interest etc. 4. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was appointed as a Class IV employee in the Food and Agriculture Department of the Government of India on 17-8-1962. The Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) came into existence on the promulgation of Food Corporation of India Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). During his service with the Central Government the petitioner was governed by the General Provident Fund Scheme. The services of the petitioner were transferred to the Corporation where he joined on 15-11-1966. The Contributory Provident Fund Scheme was in vogue in the Corporation and thus, the petitioner was given the option of continuing with the General Provident Fund Scheme or the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme in view of the requirement of Section 12-A of the Act. In his option given on 10-3-1977 the petitioner opted for Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and he was allotted a new Contributory Provident Fund No. 98836 vide order of the Corporation dated 16-8-1996 w.e.f. 1-4-1973. The petitioner retired in 2002 and treating him as a member of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, the entire retiral dues, except Rs. 29,562/- was paid to him. However, he has preferred this petition for being treated as member of the General Provident Fund Scheme and claims benefit thereof like pension etc. 5. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that once the Corporation continued to treat him as a member of the General Provident Fund Scheme even after his option of 10-3-1977 and continued to deduct General Provident Fund till August 1996, they could not have treated him as a Contributory Provident Fund optee and deny him the benefit of pension etc. and cause huge financial loss to him. 6. The Food Corporation of India was established under the Food Corporation of India Act, 1964. Under Section 12-A, special provisions were made for transfer of Government employees to the Corporation. and cause huge financial loss to him. 6. The Food Corporation of India was established under the Food Corporation of India Act, 1964. Under Section 12-A, special provisions were made for transfer of Government employees to the Corporation. The Central Government was empowered to propose transfer of Central Government employees to the Corporation subject to the acceptance of such employees. Under sub-section (4) of Section 12-A every officer or employee transferred to the Corporation was given the option to continue to avail the benefit of leave, provident fund, retirement or other terminal benefits admissible to the employees of Central Government or to opt for those benefits applicable to the employees of the Corporation and the option once exercised was deemed to be final. The petitioner, as noted hereinabove, opted for being governed by the leave provident fund, retirement and other terminal benefit applicable to the employees of the Corporation and thereby accepted to be a member of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. Even in the option letter, which is on record, it is clearly mentioned that the option once exercised is final. No doubt the Corporation did not act upon the option and issued the Contributory Provident Fund number immediately, but that cannot be a ground for the petitioner to withdraw his option. Section 12-A mandates that the option once exercised shall be final but it does not say that ‘options acted upon’ would be final. The exercise is a statutory mandate and it cannot be allowed to be set at naught merely because it was acted upon late and it would not be open to the petitioner to say that it was disadvantageous to him and that to after his retirement. It is not denied that the total amount of the General Provident Fund contribution of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 1,02,319/- was transferred and accredited in his Contributory Provident Fund Account and the Corporation, after contributing its own share of Rs. 4,42,381/-, has already paid a total sum of Rs. 5,44,700/- to the petitioner as his Contributory Provident Fund on 19-12-2002 while the gratuity of Rs. 2,49,090/- was paid on 17-2-2003. Further, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate as to how he has suffered any loss because admittedly, the Corporation has paid its share of matching contribution under the Scheme. Thus, the argument of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 7. 5,44,700/- to the petitioner as his Contributory Provident Fund on 19-12-2002 while the gratuity of Rs. 2,49,090/- was paid on 17-2-2003. Further, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate as to how he has suffered any loss because admittedly, the Corporation has paid its share of matching contribution under the Scheme. Thus, the argument of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 7. Lastly, it is urged that the petitioner has not been paid the General Provident Fund amount for the period 17-8-1962 to 15-11-1966 and the Corporation is liable to pay the same. Admittedly, during this period the petitioner was an employee of the Central Government when he contributed towards his General Provident Fund and he was yet not born in the Corporation. The stand of the Corporation is that the petitioner had opted in the service of the Corporation on 15-11-1966 and his entire dues, except for Rs. 29,562/- has been paid and the Corporation is not liable to pay the General Provident Fund amount deposited with the Central Government. Normally, when an employee is transferred to a statutory Corporation by the Central Government his General Provident Fund contribution is protected. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner annexing a copy of the circular of the Corporation No. PGF/MC/1/PC/87-HO dated July, 1987. Even though time was granted to the Corporation to file reply, yet no reply has been filed. A perusal of the said circular shows that the Corporation had undertaken to pay the Government’s share alongwith interest to the employee and thereafter recover it from the Department of Food of the Government of India or may get it reimbursed in the shape of subsidy. Therefore, under the said circular, the Corporation has to pay the employee’s share deposited while the petitioner was working in the Food Department of the Government of India on the terms mentioned in the circular. Thus, merely saying that the Corporation is not bound to pay the amounts accredited as employee’s contribution while the petitioner was in Government service, is in the teeth of the decision taken in the aforesaid circular. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for payment of the said amount. 8. The Corporation admits that a sum of Rs. 29,562/- still remains to be paid to the petitioner but no plausible reasons have been given as to why the amount has not been paid. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for payment of the said amount. 8. The Corporation admits that a sum of Rs. 29,562/- still remains to be paid to the petitioner but no plausible reasons have been given as to why the amount has not been paid. Thus, the respondents are directed to pay the amount of Rs. 29,562 to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of service of a certified copy of the order upon the respondents together with simple interest at the rate of six per cent from the date it became due up to the date it is actually paid. In case of default, the petitioner would be entitled to six percent compound interest likewise. Subject to the direction aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs. Petition Partly Allowed. ———