Judgment K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 2nd September, 2009 and 1st June, 2009 passed by the respondent authorities as also to direct the Respondent No. 2 to permit the petitioner to opt for counting his past military services of 6 years 5 months and 19 days as qualifying services for pension in the present employment and also direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to deposit the amount of gratuity which has been paid by the Indian Air Force with the respondent department. 2. The short facts leading to filing of this petition are that the petitioner was working in Indian Air Force as an Airman and had put up more than 6 years of service. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent department for the appointment on the post of Assistant Commandant, the petitioner applied and had selected on the said post. After joining, the petitioner was sent for training, which he successfully completed in the year 1998. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted in several places. 2.1. The petitioner had passed the training, however, the petitioner was never issued with the letter of confirmation. Thereafter, petitioner made an application through proper channel to the Respondent No. 2 on 18.06.2007. The Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 25.08.2007 informed the petitioner that the application should have been submitted either within one year from the date of re-employment or within 3 months from the date of issuance of his confirmation order in the Civil Service or Force. Again on 11.10.2007 the petitioner submitted another application, stating therein that he was never issued with any letter of confirmation and prayed that he should be given an opportunity for exercising his option for counting of his previous service as a part of qualifying service. 2.2. When no reply was received, the petitioner submitted another application to the Respondent No. 2 on 23.05.2008. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 2 issued a letter on 01.06.2009, repeating the same contention as contented in his earlier letter. The petitioner again on 12.06.2009 pointing out that he was never intimated regarding confirmation order earlier than 2007 and he prayed for condonation of delay. The respondent authority vide order dated 02.09.2009 rejected the request of the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is never served the confirmation letter. The petitioner again on 12.06.2009 pointing out that he was never intimated regarding confirmation order earlier than 2007 and he prayed for condonation of delay. The respondent authority vide order dated 02.09.2009 rejected the request of the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is never served the confirmation letter. He further contended that pursuant to Rule 19 (2)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the earlier service of the petitioner i.e. 6 years 5 months and 19 days rendered in the Air Force is required to be considered as qualifying service. Rule 19 (2)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, reads as under:— “The authority issuing the order of substantive appointment to a civil service or post as is referred to in Sub-rule (1) shall along with such order require in writing the government servant to exercise the option under that sub-rule within three months of date of issue of such order, if he is on leave on that day, within three months of his return from leave, whichever is later and also bring to his notice the provisions of Clause (b).” 4. Learned Advocate Ms. Mita S. Panchal, appearing for the respondents pointed out that confirmation order dated 18th November, 1999 (Annexure- R-II to this petition) was served to the petitioner through his Betalian. However, the same has been disputed by learned advocate for the petitioner. 5. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 6. From plain reading of Annexure-R-II to this petition, it is clear that the confirmation order dated 18th November, 1999 was served to the petitioner by the respondents. In view of the documents produced by the respondents on record, there is no reasons to disbelieve the contention made by learned advocate for the respondents. However, after lapse of 10 years we could not verify the statement made by the learned advocate for the petitioner from the original documents, as under the Rule after 10 years the record may not be available with the office. Since the petitioner has given option to exercise option but he could not exercise the option, he is not entitled for the reliefs under Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. 7. Since the petitioner has given option to exercise option but he could not exercise the option, he is not entitled for the reliefs under Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. 7. In that view of the matter, we are of the view, the relief claimed by the petitioner in the petition is required to be rejected. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. 8. In view of the order passed in the main matter, the Civil Application would not survive, the same is disposed of accordingly. P P P P P