JUDGMENT Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for Gauhati University. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents for payment of pension, including arrear pension w.e.f. 31.08.1997. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he had joined Gauhati University as Lecturer in Physics in the year 1962. In the year 1981 he was promoted to the post of Professor in Physics. Later on, he became the Head of the said department. Petitioner was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of Gauhati University on 14.02.1996 and after completing his tenure, he laid down office on 11.11.2001. 3. According to the petitioner, after laying down office of Vice-Chancellor, he was expecting payment of his retirement benefits including pension but he did not receive any such benefit. He, therefore, submitted a representation dated 10.02.2005 before respondent No. 3 with a copy marked to respondent No. 4. Further representation was submitted on 08.04.2005. Only in the later part of the year 2007, retirement benefits of the petitioner were released but no pension has been paid. 4. Petitioner had opted for pension as a teacher in Physics but no such pension has been provided. Ultimately, Registrar of Gauhati University passed an office order dated 31.03.2011 stating that pursuant to the decision of the Executive Council dated 25.01.2011, petitioner has been allowed pension as per University norms w.e.f. his date of retirement i.e. 31.08.1997. It was further stated that the said order had the approval of the Vice Chancellor. 5. Even after passing of such office order, no pension has been paid to the petitioner. He, therefore, submitted a representation dated 11.06.2012 before respondent No. 2 but the same did not elicit any response. 6. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the relief as indicated above. 7. Contention of the petitioner is that he is entitled to pension and because of non-payment of pension, he is in considerable distress which has hampered him from leading a dignified life. 8. Registrar of Gauhati University on behalf of the respondents has filed an affidavit. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the relief as indicated above. 7. Contention of the petitioner is that he is entitled to pension and because of non-payment of pension, he is in considerable distress which has hampered him from leading a dignified life. 8. Registrar of Gauhati University on behalf of the respondents has filed an affidavit. It is stated that though the term of the petitioner as Vice Chancellor was upto 11.11.2001, petitioner had already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.08.1997 as Professor of Physics and, therefore, he was entitled to the retirement benefits for the services rendered by him upto 31.08.1997. Respondents have denied receiving the representation of the petitioner dated 10.02.2005 as the record does not disclose receipt of any such representation. Contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to pension has been denied. It is stated that petitioner had opted for Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) and after his retirement, the entire amount of CPF was credited in his bank account, which was thereafter withdrawn by the petitioner. Executive Council of the University in its meeting held on 27.11.2009 had decided that request of the petitioner for pension could not be considered as he did not submit option in due time. All the retirement benefits have been paid to the petitioner. At the time of joining the University on 09.11.1962, petitioner had filled up the relevant form for deduction of Provident Fund amount towards CPF after opting for CPF. At the time of revision of pay scale, petitioner had specifically mentioned that he was a subscriber to the CPF in the revised pay scale. Petitioner regularly contributed to CPF till the date of his retirement on 30.08.1997. Regarding pension as Professor, it is contended that his option form was received after withdrawal of entire Provident Fund money. As to the decision of the Executive Council dated 25.01.2011 and the office order based thereon dated 31.03.2011, it is contended that the matter was looked into and it was found that petitioner had withdrawn his final payment from the Provident Fund account which was thereafter closed and that no further formalities remained to be observed in terms of the resolution of the Executive Council. 9. Petitioner in his reply affidavit has reiterated his position that he is entitled to pension. 9. Petitioner in his reply affidavit has reiterated his position that he is entitled to pension. University has accepted the position by passing the order dated 31.03.2011. Petitioner had submitted his option form on 01.06.1996 but the same was received by the Treasury Office on 17.11.2001 by which time petitioner had withdrawn the Provident Fund amount. It was because of the lapse on the part of the University authorities which resulted in delayed receipt of his option form. In such circumstances, denial of pension to the petitioner would not be justified. 10. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the University had taken the decision as can be seen from the office order dated 31.03.2011, there can be no justification to withhold pension. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the Gauhati University submits that petitioner had exercised his option for CPF and throughout his service career, he had made contribution to the CPF account and after his retirement, he had withdrawn the entire CPF amount including the contribution of the University. Therefore, claim of the petitioner for pension thereafter is neither tenable nor justified. In any case, petitioner had retired from service way back on 31.08.1997 and the writ petition has been filed after 15 years. Since petitioner has been paid his entire retirement dues and his CPF account having been closed on full withdrawal, question of reopening the claim of the petitioner for pension does not arise at this belated stage. He has also produced the service record of the petitioner. 12. Submissions made have been considered. Also perused the record. 13. Before proceeding further, relevant provisions of the Gauhati University Retirement Benefit Rules, 1974 may be looked into. The said Rules have been framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 36(1) of the Gauhati University Act, 1947. Rule 3 deals with application of the Rules whereas Rule 4 deals with exercise of option. As per Rule 3, the said Rules are applicable to all employees of the Gauhati University except part-time employees, re-employed pensioners, deputationists, temporary and daily wage staff. The employees were required to give option for pension or for CPF. In case of those employees who had opted for pension, their contribution to CPF prior to 01.04.1974 would be treated as subscription to GPF and they would be deemed to have been in pensionable service. The employees were required to give option for pension or for CPF. In case of those employees who had opted for pension, their contribution to CPF prior to 01.04.1974 would be treated as subscription to GPF and they would be deemed to have been in pensionable service. As per Rule 4, all the employees who had joined the University before 01.04.1974 and were in service on 01.04.1974 had to send their option in writing to the Treasurer within 3 (three) months of the date of notification of the said Rules. Those employees who failed to exercise their option within the specified period would be treated as having opted for the existing Rules obtaining prior to 01.04.1974. It is further provided that option once exercised shall be final. 14. It is seen that during the entire length of petitioner's service in the Gauhati University from the year 1962 to his superannuation in the year 1997, he made his contribution of Provident Fund to the CPF account regularly. At no point of time during his long service career, did the petitioner raise any objection that he had opted for pension. His contribution towards CPF, which was voluntary, continued for more than 3 decades. It is too late in the day to now contend that he had opted for pension and, therefore, he should be provided pension, that too, after withdrawing the entire CPF amount. 15. It is not known under what circumstances the Executive Council took the decision on 25.01.2011, on the basis of which the University passed the order dated 31.03.2011. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, such a decision does not appear to stand to reason. The said decision, in the opinion of the Court, does not confer any enforceable right on the petitioner. If the University in its wisdom wishes to act on such decision, it is for the University to do so but the same cannot be the basis for a direction of the Court. No case for interference is made out. 16. Writ petition is dismissed. Record produced by Mr. Sharma is returned back. Petition dismissed.