JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. By way of present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellants have challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 26.09.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge while dealing with Special Civil Application No. 22735 of 2006, whereby the learned Single Judge has directed the respondent to cover the original petitioners under the Pension Scheme. 2. Brief facts of the present appeal are that the respondent original petitioners preferred the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 22735 of 2007 before this Court, challenging the order passed by the appellant No. 1 in respect of pensionary benefit. On 26/9/2007, the learned Single Judge passed the judgment and order without taking into consideration and appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the provisions of Section 4(A) of the Food Corporation Act. The impugned judgment and order is without appreciating and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and against the provisions of Law and considering the fact that employee of the appellant corporation is governed by the instruction issued from the Food Corporation Act. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge has not considered the important aspect that the respondent himself admits vide his representation dated 16/11/2005 that he had opted for Food Corporation of India benefit as per the option given by him at the time of transfer of service from the Department of Food to the Food Corporation of India, as per Notification and the same was acknowledged by the In charge. 4. He contended that the respondent was aware about his terminal benefit from the date of exercising the option till the date of retirement. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled for the pensionary benefit. He further contended that the respondent at belated stage and requested for change of the option for retirement benefit, which is not just and proper. Therefore, the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge while allowing the petition is illegal, improper and unjust, which would require interference by this Court. 5. As against that, learned counsel Ms. Sangita Pahwa appearing for the respondent has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge and contended that no interference is called for by this Court. 6. No other submissions have been made by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 7. 5. As against that, learned counsel Ms. Sangita Pahwa appearing for the respondent has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge and contended that no interference is called for by this Court. 6. No other submissions have been made by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and in great detail. We have also perused the documents on record and the order of the learned Single Judge. The relevant observation made by the learned Single Judge in para 13 reads as under: "13. Therefore, according to my opinion, the petitioner is entitled the benefit of pension as from the date of transfer to FCI as GPF was deducted from the salary of the petitioner, meaning thereby that, he deemed to be member of GPF and, therefore, entitled the pensionary benefits. The respondent Corporation has accepted the deduction from the salary of the petitioner for GPF and that fact was not objected during the entire services of petitioner and final payment, after retirement, is also made to the petitioner from GPF. Therefore, considering the conduct/inaction on the part of the respondent Corporation, petitioner is deemed to be a member of GPF Scheme and, therefore, entitled the benefits of pension as per the Central Government Rules." 8. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, even if we accept that CPF Form was accepted by the present respondent original petitioner, from the record it is very difficult to believe that same was accepted by the respondent. There is nothing on record to show that CPF amount was deducted from the salary of the employee for contribution of CPF scheme and if the amount of CPF was paid by the employer. 9. In that view of the matter, learned Single Judge has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the respondent original petitioner is entitled for the pensionary benefits. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 15/12/2008, the Appellant Corporation has paid the CPF amount to the respondent. Therefore, we pass following directions: (A) The said amount will be repaid by the employee with 8% interest within a period of two months directly to the Appellant and the pension will be given from the date of retirement with all consequential benefits immediately after receipt of the payment made by respondent with arrears. Therefore, we pass following directions: (A) The said amount will be repaid by the employee with 8% interest within a period of two months directly to the Appellant and the pension will be given from the date of retirement with all consequential benefits immediately after receipt of the payment made by respondent with arrears. (B) The respondent to complete the formalities of repayment the amount within one month from the date of receipt of this order. (C) The Appellant to complete formalities of the Pension Papers of the respondent. Concerned authority is directed to consider the case of respondent for pensionary benefits within period of two months from the date of receipt of this pension papers. (D) The pensionary benefits, which are required to be paid made by the appellant wit interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the retirement of the respondent till the actual date of payment." 10. In light of the above, we do not find any illegality and infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. In the result, the appeal is dismissed accordingly. 11. Since the main appeal is disposed of by this Court, the civil application does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed of. Letters Patent Appeal dismissed.