Judgment :- K.K. SASIDHARAN, J. These two writ appeals are directed against the common order dated 31 March 2011 in W.P.No.11015 of 2009 and W.P.No.6296 of 2011 dismissing the claim for pensionary benefits by taking into account the earlier service rendered in Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "TANSI") and Tamil Nadu Leather Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "TALCO") along with the regular service rendered in Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board (hereinafter referred to as "Khadi Board"). The facts: 2. The appellant in W.A.No.1225 of 2011 was initially appointed as Works Manager in TANSI Tannery with effect from 20 October 1982. Subsequently, he was transferred to TALCO on 14 April 1986. While he was working with TALCO, he was given promotion as General Manager. Subsequently, TALCO was amalgamated with Khadi Board pursuant to the Government Order in G.O.Ms.54, Small Industries (SID) Department dated 30 October 2000 and he was absorbed in the services of Khadi Board. 3. The appellant in W.A.No.1543 of 2011 was initially appointed as Time Keeper in TANSI with effect from 8 August 1973. He was later transferred to TALCO and posted as Typist with effect from 14 April 1986. While transferring him to TALCO from TANSI, he was given continuity in service and his past services were also taken into account. Subsequently, TALCO was amalgamated with Khadi Board. The appellant was absorbed in Khadi Board and he was posted as Assistant with effect from 22 October 2001. 4. The appellants retired from Khadi Board on attaining the age of superannuation. Though the appellants made a request to grant them pension taking into account their past services in TANSI and TALCO, the Khadi Board was not inclined to count the said services for the purpose of counting the total service for grant of pension. This made the appellants to file writ petitions in W.P.Nos.11015 of 2009 and 6296 of 2011 directing the Khadi Board to consider their earlier services and to grant them pension. 5. The learned Single Judge found that the appellants have not completed ten years of pensionable service in Khadi Board. The learned Single Judge on a perusal of the records produced by the Additional Advocate General found that the appellants have given an undertaking that they would not claim the benefits of their earlier service while joining the Khadi Board. 5. The learned Single Judge found that the appellants have not completed ten years of pensionable service in Khadi Board. The learned Single Judge on a perusal of the records produced by the Additional Advocate General found that the appellants have given an undertaking that they would not claim the benefits of their earlier service while joining the Khadi Board. The learned Single Judge opined that having given such an undertaking, the appellants are estopped from claiming their earlier service for computing the pensionable service in Khadi Board. Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants are before us again by way of these two intra-court appeals. Rival Contentions: 6. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellant in W.A.No.1225 of 2011 submitted his option on 1 December, 2000 wherein it was clearly stated that his services in Khadi Board will be in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government. Similarly, the appellant in W.A.No.1543 of 2011 has also given an undertaking on 22 October 2002. According to the learned counsel the fact that the appellants have given an undertaking that they would not claim the service rendered in TALCO for all purposes in Khadi Board, would not prevent them from claiming the benefits of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.675, Finance (BPE) Department dated 22 September 1993. The learned counsel on the basis of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.675 Finance (BPE) Department dated 22 September 1993 contended that the Government have declared that the employees of State Public Sector Undertaking subsequently absorbed in Statutory Board will have an option to choose to count the service rendered in the State Public Sector Undertaking as qualifying service for pension in the Statutory Board by foregoing the employer's share of Contributory Provident Fund. The learned counsel contended that the appellants have exercised option for pension in Khadi Board. The appellants have not withdrawn the Employer's Provident Fund Contribution and as such, the Khadi Board was bound to consider the earlier service for counting the total service in Khadi Board for the limited purpose of granting pension. The learned counsel again by placing reliance on the so called option letter contended that the appellants have already exercised the option and as such the Khadi Board erred in rejecting their request for pension. 7. The learned counsel again by placing reliance on the so called option letter contended that the appellants have already exercised the option and as such the Khadi Board erred in rejecting their request for pension. 7. The learned Standing Counsel for the Khadi Board on the basis of the statement made by the Chief Executive Officer in his detailed counter affidavit contended that the appellants have not exercised any option within the cut off period in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.675, Finance (BPE) Department dated 22 September 1993 and as such, their claim for pension was rightly rejected by the Khadi Board. Factual Analysis: 8. The appellants were earlier employed in TANSI. Subsequently, the employees of TANSI were absorbed in TALCO. The Government, later found that it was not possible to carry on the activities of TALCO and directed closure of its activities. The Government also took a decision to re-employ all the workers in Khadi Board. The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.675, Finance (BPE) Department dated 22 September 1993 deals with cases of Government Servants and servants of Statutory Board absorbed in another Statutory Board where the pension scheme is in existence. The said Government Order mandates that an employee of the State Public Sector Undertaking on permanent absorption under a Statutory Board is entitled to exercise an option either to receive Contributory Provident Fund benefits which have accrued to him from the State Public Sector Undertaking and start his service afresh in the Statutory Board or choose to count the service rendered in the State Public Sector Undertaking as qualifying service for pension in the Statutory Board by foregoing the employer's share of Employees Contributory Provident Fund. The employee in such case has to exercise his option within one year from the date of absorption. 9. The appellants have given an undertaking before the Khadi Board while joining service. The appellants have very clearly stated that they would not claim any service benefits or service protection in Khadi Board on the basis of their earlier service. The undertaking originally given, contains a clear statement that the appellants have agreed for appointment subject to the condition that the services rendered in TALCO would be taken for all purposes in Khadi Board. The statement regarding past service was subsequently deleted. The undertaking originally given, contains a clear statement that the appellants have agreed for appointment subject to the condition that the services rendered in TALCO would be taken for all purposes in Khadi Board. The statement regarding past service was subsequently deleted. This clearly gives an indication that the appellants were absorbed in Khadi Board subject to the condition that they would not claim the past services rendered in TALCO for all purposes including pension. 10. The Government have issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.19, Small Industries (SID) Department dated 26 February 1999 with respect to absorption of the erstwhile employees of TALCO. The said Government Order relating to surplus employees of TALCO provides that the staff of TALCO who were absorbed by other Departments/Public Sector Undertakings/Statutory Boards, if found to be fit in the concerned posts would be given pay protection. However, they would not be given service protection. Since the said Government Order was issued with respect to the surplus employees of TALCO, the stipulation that the service protection would not be given, clearly applies to the case of appellants. 11. The appellants have taken up a contention that they have given option and submitted their no objection for transfer of contribution from the Employees Provident Fund Office to the Khadi Board. The Khadi Board has expressly denied the receipt of any such option or request. There are no materials before this Court to suggest that the appellants have approached the Employees Provident Fund authority to transfer the Employees Provident Fund amount accumulated in their account so as to enable them to claim pension. Similarly, there are no documents to show that the appellants have exercised the option within a period of one year in accordance with the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.675, Finance (BPE) Department dated 22 September 1993. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants incidentally contended that the Khadi Board has not called for option and as such the employees were not at fault. The question calling for exercising the option does not arise the subject case. The appellants were absorbed in Khadi Service. Even in the undertaking given originally by the appellants there was a clear mention about the said Government Order. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the appellants were fully aware of the necessity to exercise the option within a period of one year. The appellants were absorbed in Khadi Service. Even in the undertaking given originally by the appellants there was a clear mention about the said Government Order. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the appellants were fully aware of the necessity to exercise the option within a period of one year. However, the fact remains that no such option was exercised by the appellants. On the other hand, the available materials on record clearly shows that the appellants have undertaken that they would not claim the earlier services rendered in TALCO for any purpose. The appellants having given an undertaking that they would not claim the benefits of earlier service, cannot be heard to say at a later point of time that due weight should be given to the earlier service for the purpose of granting pension. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in dismissing the writ petitions. We do not find any error or illegality in the said order warranting our interference. Result: 13. In the upshot, we dismiss the writ appeals. No costs.