Judgment : This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in rejecting the petitioner’s claim for family pension benefits of her deceased husband Sri S. Brahmam, as illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Scheme framed thereunder. The husband of the petitioner was an employee of respondent No.2 and he has become a member of the Employees’ Provident Fund with effect from 23.10.1970. Respondent No.1 has introduced the Employees’ Family Pension Scheme, 1971 (for short “the 1971 Scheme”) which came into force with effect from 01.03.1971. On 24.07.1994, the husband of the petitioner died while in service. The petitioner made a claim before respondent No.1 for payment of family pension under the 1971 Scheme. Through letter dated 10.10.2000, respondent No.1 has informed the petitioner that she is not entitled to receive the monthly family pension, as her late husband has not opted for the Family Pension Scheme during his lifetime. Respondent No.1 has also returned the petitioner’s claim to respondent No.2, through letter dated 27.11.2000. The petitioner has, then, got issued legal notice dated 29.03.2001 to respondent No.1. The said legal notice was received by respondent No.1 on 25.04.2001. In the reply notice, respondent No.1 has once again reiterated his stand that the petitioner is not eligible for drawing the monthly family pension. Feeling aggrieved by the denial of family pension, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. On behalf of respondent No.1, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal) filed a counter affidavit wherein it is inter alia stated that the petitioner’s husband was the member of the Employees Provident Fund with effect from 23.10.1970 under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, that the 1971 Scheme was introduced with effect from 01.03.1971, that paragraph 4 of the said Scheme provides for option for the existing members to join the Scheme, and that such option shall be given within six months from 01.03.1971. It is further averred that in case no option is exercised, the whole amount of contributions will be credited to the Provident Fund Account as it was done before the introduction of the 1971 Scheme and that in the case of the petitioner’s husband, as he did not exercise his option, the whole amount, which was credited to his E.P.F. Account, was paid to the petitioner. Respondent No.1 has, thus, justified the denial of family pension to the petitioner. It is not disputed by the petitioner that her husband was the member of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme prior to introduction of the 1971 Scheme. Under paragraph 3 of the Scheme, every employee who becomes a member of the Employees’ Provident Fund or of Provident Funds of factories and other establishments exempted under Section 17 of the Act on or after the 1st day of March, 1971 and who has been a member of the Employees’ Provident Fund or of Provident Funds of factories and other establishments exempted under Section 17 of the Act immediately before the commencement of this Scheme and opts to exercise his option under paragraph 4, will be a member of the 1971 Scheme. Under paragraph 4 (2), the option for those persons, who are already members of the Employees’ Provident Fund by 01.03.1971, shall opt for the 1971 Scheme within a period of six months from 01.03.1971. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner’s husband has not given such option as envisaged under paragraph 4(2). The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Gitaben Arvindkumar Sheth Vs. Union of India (1996 LAB. I. C. 542). A perusal of this judgment would show that the question whether a person, who was already in service prior to 01.03.1971 and a member of the Provident Fund Scheme of 1952, will be automatically entitled to become a member of Family Pension Scheme of 1971, did not fall for consideration. In that case, the employee concerned has joined service on 31.05.1990 i.e., much after the commencement of the 1971 Scheme. Therefore, the observations made in paragraph 5 of the said judgment do not help the petitioner herein. This view of mine is fortified by the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Smitawd/o Shrikant Vaidya Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Thane and others (2001-II-LLJ). For the above-mentioned reasons, I find no merit in the Writ Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.25289 of 2001 is disposed of as infructuous.