JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition a prayer has been made to direct the respondents to extend benefit of pension to the petitioner along with interest. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in option form petitioner had opted for pension, however, due to mala fide of the respondents, alterations were made in the option form, therefore, treating it to be a case of submission option for pension, respondents may be directed to extend necessary benefits as prayed for in the writ petition. For the aforesaid purpose, petitioner is ready to repay the amount of Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) so deposited in his account as it was not otherwise accepted by him thus lying in the bank account without withdrawal. 3. Learned counsel for respondents submit that option form submitted by the petitioner has no cuttings or over-writing, rather, original option form shows that option for CPF scheme has been filled, accordingly, from the year 1995 itself contribution towards CPF was deducted from the salary of the petitioner. He never made any objection to the aforesaid. It is for the first time that after retirement such an objection is made. Looking to the aforesaid, petitioner is not entitled for any benefit. 4. I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and perused record of the case so as the original record which was called by this court. 5. Since there was a dispute and allegation regarding alteration in option form, original record of the petitioner was called and looked into by me. Perusal of the option form shows that after making a line over the option for CPF, petitioner marked right tick for pensionary benefits in lieu of CPF. However, it seems that somebody thereafter put a line on the remaining part of sentence which starts from "Anshdayee Bhavishya Nidhi" thus there seems to be manipulation in the option form. Looking to the aforesaid and fact that petitioner was a class IV servant may have not made a protest regarding deduction of CPF, however, the fact remains that option form has been given to opt for pension in lieu of CPF, the benefit arising out of it cannot be denied to the petitioner. Looking to the aforesaid and fact that petitioner was a class IV servant may have not made a protest regarding deduction of CPF, however, the fact remains that option form has been given to opt for pension in lieu of CPF, the benefit arising out of it cannot be denied to the petitioner. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, more specifically perusal of the record shows a right tick on option for pensionary benefits in lieu of CPF, petitioner should have been given benefit of pension. In fact, looking to the alteration in the option form, matter could have been sent for investigation but it may further cause delay thus both the counsel prayed for disposal of the writ petition with necessary directions. This is more so when it is a case of pension. 6. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Petitioner is held entitled for pension and he is directed to repay the amount of CPF to the respondents along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within a period of one month from today. On repayment of the amount by the petitioner, respondents are directed to extend benefit of pension to the petitioner from the date of his retirement. It is directed that pensionary benefits may be released to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of repayment of CPF amount with interest by the petitioner. The petitioner has foregone interest on the due benefits.Writ petition allowed. *******