ORDER Heard. 1. Appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 16-10-2008 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 194/2007 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant for grant of pension. 2. The appellant was appointed as Carpenter in the year 1963 in Gwalior Engineering Works, Gwalior. Later on, his services were merged with Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. He continued in service up to his retirement, i.e., 10-6-2000. The petitioner contended before the learned Single Judge that he is entitled pension in accordance with the provisions of Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the 'Scheme of 1971', as well as under the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1995, hereinafter referred to as the 'Scheme of 1995'. 3. The Union Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 6-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to the 'Act of 1952', framed Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 for providing pension to the employees covered under the Act of 1952. Rule 3 of the Scheme of 1971, quoted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, prescribes 'Membership of the Family Pension Fund'. As per the aforesaid rule there must be an option on behalf of the employee for the Scheme and he has to pay a contribution towards the Scheme. Same provision is there in the subsequent Scheme of 1995. 4. The respondents have categorically stated that the appellant did not exercise the option for the Pension Scheme neither he had paid any contribution towards the Scheme up to his retirement. This fact also finds support to the effect that the petitioner has not paid any contribution during the period of his employment neither he submitted any option to become member of the Scheme. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant was a member of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Act, 1952 and it was the statutory duty of the respondents to deduct contribution towards the Pension Scheme from the salary of the appellant, could not be accepted because there is no provision in the Scheme of 1971 or Scheme of 1995 to the effect that the employer has to deduct compulsorily the contribution towards Pension Scheme from the salary of the employee. Contrary to this, there is a provision of option for the Scheme. When the petitioner has not opted for the Scheme nor he has paid any contribution towards the Scheme, in such circumstances, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the petitioner is not entitled the pension in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. The learned Single Judge has also considered the judgments cited by the appellant before this Court. 5. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this writ appeal. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.