Petitioner was employed in the Punjab National Bank as Peon-cum-Guard, later on was promoted as Cashier-Godown Keeper, on reaching superannuation has retired on 30th of June' 2003. His pension payment proposal was not accepted by the Competent Authority. Aggrieved thereof, instant petition has been filed. Respondent-Bank formulated a Scheme known as Punjab National Bank (Pension Regulation) Scheme, 1995. In terms of the Regulation no.3 of the said Scheme, the employees of the Bank were to exercise option for pension in writing within 120 days from the date the Scheme is notified. The said Scheme has been notified on 29th of September' 1995, which would mean that up to 27th of January' 1996, employees were required to exercise the option for pension. Petitioner admittedly exercised the option on 31st of January' 1996, which is clear from the application form as filed by the petitioner, therefore after the stipulated time. The Authorities concerned after considering the facts and available records decided to treat the petitioner as non-pension optee and also at the same time mentioned in the communication that the accumulated Bank's contribution is being remitted to the credit of Provident Fund Trust for refund of the same to the petitioner. On behalf of Bank an affidavit has been filed, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner has exercised his option on 31st of January' 1996, so admittedly after the stipulated time. It is further mentioned in para no.8 of the affidavit as under:- “8. That the deponent submits that the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 1,42,488/- as Gratuity vide cheque bearing No. 724219 dated 27/08/2003 and Provident Fund (Own contribution) amounting to Rs. 1,22,848.33 vide cheque No. 721575 dated 23/06/2003. The Bank also paid the Provident Fund (Bank's contribution) to the petitioner amounting to Rs. 1,25,601.83 vide cheque No. 000485 dated 22/10/2004 out of Provident Fund Trust Account bearing No. 0153000200659672, the account maintained by the bank for Provident Fund of the employees only, but this cheque has not been encashed by the petitioner, as such, the said amount i.e. Rs. 1,25,601.83 vide cheque No. 000485 dated 22/10/2004 out of Provident Fund Trust Account bearing No. 0153000200659672, the account maintained by the bank for Provident Fund of the employees only, but this cheque has not been encashed by the petitioner, as such, the said amount i.e. Rs. 1,25,601.83 is still outstanding in the Banker's account.” Petitioner in the memo of petition has contended that the petitioner had exercised the option well within the prescribed time at the Branch level and if the pension papers reached the respondent late through proper channel, then the petitioner could not be blamed for the same as the pension papers were communicated by the Branch Manager to the concerned Authorities late. The said contention is totally incorrect because the requisite form signed by the petitioner sent to the respondents through Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Kathua clearly indicates that the petitioner has recorded the date as 31st of January' 1996, which would suggest that he has not exercised the option prior to 31st of January' 1996. It is clear from the Scheme that the Provident Fund was substituted by the pension Scheme for such employees who exercised option well within time. It is further projected in the petition that other similarly situated employees of the Bank have been paid pension, same is correct because the other employees of the Bank Branch Kathua have exercised the option on 25th of January' 1996, as is clearly reflected in their application forms, Photostat copies of which are produced, therefore, all the employees who have exercised the option before 27th of January' 1996 have been paid pension. No other case is referred to by the petitioner which would indicate that any employee who has exercised the option after 27th of January' 1996, was paid any pension. It is the contention of the learned counsel that when the exercise of option was not objected for a long time and petitioner did not avail any Provident Fund withdrawal/Provident Fund Loan during his service, promissory estoppel will operate, but the contention has to be rejected because it was for the petitioner to exercise the option well within the time and to take care of his own position. If submission of the petitioner is accepted then every employee of the Bank will exercise the option after the prescribed date and then claim the benefits and if same is allowed to happen, it may have dangerous consequences. The respondents have taken the right decision by treating the petitioner as non-pension optee, no fault is found with the same. Hon'ble Apex Court in a case titled Jai Singh Chouhan Vs Punjab National Bank & Others in Civil Appeal No. 3845 of 2005 arising out of SLP (C) 11807 of 2004 has dealt with the similar position. In the reported judgment, the employee had exercised the option after 120 days, i.e., after 27th of January' 1996. The rejection of his claim to the effect that he is not governed by the pension Scheme has been maintained. Viewed thus, non exercise of the option within the stipulated time disentitles the petitioner from claiming the benefit of the Pension Scheme. Therefore, petition is without any merit, so is dismissed.