JUDGMENT : D.P. CHOUDHURY, J. 1. This is an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to draw the pension under Notification dated 11.8.1987 under Annexure-1 to the writ petition and for disbursement of necessary pensionary benefits. 2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as a Professor in Orissa University of Agricultural and Technology (hereinafter called OUAT) on 26.9.1967. While he was serving, he was following the Pension Scheme but vide Notification No. 23449 dated 11.8.1987, the OUAT allowed its employees to exercise option to continue in the Pension Scheme or to sit in the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (in short CPF Scheme) and accordingly the present petitioner exercised option to switch over from CPF Scheme to Pension Scheme which was accepted by the OUAT on 20.8.1988 vide Annexure-2. Be it stated, OUAT issued another Notification bearing No. 20111 dated 26.6.1989 inviting fresh options from those employees, who had chosen not to exercise any option in pursuance of the previous notification dated 11.8.1987 and also the employees who have already been exercised their option, could yet again chose to be covered under either Pension Scheme or the CPF Scheme. As such, the OUAT created confusion in the mind of the employees for which the petitioner again gave option to switch over to CPF Scheme from Pension Scheme and the same has been accepted by the OUAT. Thereafter, the petitioner got superannuation by attaining the age of 60 years on 31.3.2004. 3. It is stated that the petitioner purportedly wrote a letter on 27.1.2007 to the Chancellor of the OUAT requesting to allow him pension and other retrial benefits according to the Pension Scheme vide Annexure-4 series to the writ petition. Since no reply was received, the petitioner filed writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 6506 of 2009 before this Court and in that case, the OUAT was directed to disburse the calculated pension amount to the petitioner without prejudice to his rights. The opposite parties have released an amount of Rs.10,86,174/- in favour of the petitioner but he refused to accept the same as OUAT did not give details of heading of payment. As there was a talk for amicable settlement between the parties, the petitioner withdrew the above writ petition on 16.11.2012. The opposite parties have released an amount of Rs.10,86,174/- in favour of the petitioner but he refused to accept the same as OUAT did not give details of heading of payment. As there was a talk for amicable settlement between the parties, the petitioner withdrew the above writ petition on 16.11.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner purportedly approached the Chancellor of the OUAT for payment of pension on the basis of his claim originally made. But, finding no other relief, the petitioner filed Misc. Case No. 9283 of 2015 in the above disposed of writ petition and this Court disposed of that misc. case with a liberty to approach the opposite parties to settle the claim. Since the purpose of the petitioner could not be served in spite of the approach to the authorities of the OUAT, the petitioner filed this instant writ petition on 10.11.2015 praying to declare the notification of the OUAT issued on 26.6.1989 under Annexure-3 to be illegal and not binding and to accept his option, as exercised by him, in pursuance of the Notification dated 11.8.1987 and disburse the petitioner of such retiral benefits. 4. Per contra, the opposite parties 2 and 3 have filed counter affidavit stating therein that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief but admitted that the petitioner had served in the OUAT from 26.9.1967 to 31.3.2004 (AN) in different capacities. The Pension Scheme was implemented in OUAT on 1.4.1985 and on implementation of the Pension Scheme, the OUAT issued another Notification No. 23449/UAT on 11.8.1987 under Annexure-1 inviting application from the existing employees of OUAT to opt for either Pension Scheme or CPF Scheme and as such, the petitioner had opted for Pension Scheme, which has been accepted by the OUAT. Thereafter, Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology Employees' (Conditions of Service) Statutes, 1989 (hereinafter called as “Statute, 1989) came into force on 29.4.1989. Then for clarification of the terminal benefits as available from the Statute, 1989, the OUAT issued another Notification No. 20111 dated 26.6.1989 under Annexure-3 asking its employees to exercise option, if they want to change their earlier option. The petitioner again changed his option by virtue of such notification from Pension Scheme to CPF Scheme and accordingly the petitioner continued in the CPF Scheme. The petitioner again changed his option by virtue of such notification from Pension Scheme to CPF Scheme and accordingly the petitioner continued in the CPF Scheme. Since the petitioner has opted for the CPF Scheme on 22.12.1989, the OUAT went on settling the pension but the petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition (W.P. (C) No. 6506 of 2009). As per the order of this Court passed on 12.8.2010 in W.P. (C) No. 6506 of 2006, OUAT prepared a cheque of Rs.10,86,174/- but the petitioner did not receive the same and again by intervention of this Court, direction was issued to receive the same without prejudice to the claim of the petitioner. 5. It is the further case of the opposite parties that since the option was exercised by the petitioner and accordingly the payment was made under CPF Scheme, the opposite parties have no outstanding of any pension as the option, being exercised by the petitioner, becomes final. Although, the pleaders notice was received by the opposite parties, the answering opposite parties have clarified that the petitioner is entitled to get the CPF Scheme under the Statute, 1989 and not otherwise as per his option. It is stated that as per the provisions of the Statute, 1989, the petitioner opted for the CPF Scheme, which is final. So, these opposite parties submitted that there is no fault with the opposite parties and there is no cause of action to file this instant writ petition for which it should be rejected. SUBMISSION 6. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has exercised the option pursuant to the Notification dated 11.8.1987. When there is notification of the OUAT calling for option from its employees to exercise same, there is no reason for the opposite parties 2 and 3 to issue another notification in 1989. According to him, the OUAT created confusion by issuing another notification inviting fresh options from its employees who have already exercised their option to such offer to either for Pension Scheme or CPF Scheme. So, the OUAT has issued illegal notification on 26.6.1989 and for no fault of the petitioner, it has refused to act on the option being submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the notification dated 11.8.1987. So, the OUAT has issued illegal notification on 26.6.1989 and for no fault of the petitioner, it has refused to act on the option being submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the notification dated 11.8.1987. He further submitted that the Notification dated 26.6.1989, being in clarificatory in nature, is not binding on the petitioner and when there is confusing notification, it is not legally valid to be acted upon. He further submitted that option once exercised becomes final and in that case, the option dated 20.8.1988 has to be considered for payment of pension. 7. Mr. Ashok Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the OUAT submitted that under Statute-36(2) of the Statute, 1989, the option, being final, the petitioners case should not be considered for the Pension Scheme. He further submitted that OUAT, in order to facilitate the employees for opting for Pension Scheme under the first Statute, 1989, has asked for their option to the then existing employees including the present petitioner and accordingly the petitioner and other employees got chance to opt either for Pension Scheme or CPF Scheme. So, he submitted that when the statutory provision speaks that the option exercised is final, the Board of Management of the OUAT cannot go beyond the provisions of law. He further submitted that the OUAT was in possession of the pension paper, calculated basing on the CPF Pension Scheme opted by the petitioner and the same has been already paid as per the order of this Court, of course without prejudice to his claim. So, he submitted that under the Statute when the option has been given finally and the payment is also made, there lies further no cause of action to allow this writ petition. So, he submitted to dismiss the writ petition. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION 8. The main point for consideration in this case is whether the petitioner is entitled to pension under the Pension Scheme or CPF Scheme? DISCUSSIONS 9. It is admitted fact that the petitioner was a Professor in OUAT right from 1967 and he superannuated from service on 31.4.2004. So, he submitted to dismiss the writ petition. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION 8. The main point for consideration in this case is whether the petitioner is entitled to pension under the Pension Scheme or CPF Scheme? DISCUSSIONS 9. It is admitted fact that the petitioner was a Professor in OUAT right from 1967 and he superannuated from service on 31.4.2004. It is also admitted fact that he has exercised his option in pursuance of the Notification of the OUAT on 11.8.1987 to switch over from CPF Scheme to Pension Scheme and it is not in dispute that the petitioner again gave option to switch over from Pension Scheme to CPF Scheme in pursuance of the Notification dated 26.6.1989 issued by the OUAT and while on such CPF Pension Scheme, he retired in 2004 but gave representation in 2007 to settle the pension as per his first option. 10. The relevant portion of the Notification dated 11.8.1987 (Annexure-1) is reproduced hereunder for reference: “ORISSA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE & TECHNOLOGY BHUBANESWAR-751003 No. OE-I-III-20/87/23449/UAT Dated, the 11.8.87 NOTIFICATION The Board of Management with the approval of the State Government have made necessary amendment in the existing statutes of the University and provided for pension and provident funds under Chapter-XVIII for the employees of the University which has been notified vide this Office Notification No. 19674 dated 27.5.1987. According to this new provision under this Chapter every employee of this University (other than the Vice-Chancellor) shall be entitled either to the benefit of the C.P.F. Scheme or to the pension scheme as applicable to the Government Servants of the State of Orissa from time to time. The rate of pension under the pension scheme shall be the same as provided under Orissa R4ules, 1977 as amended from time to time along with temporary increases if any. 2. In pursuance of the said amendment, the employees of this University who are already under C.P.F. Scheme shall exercise their option either to come over to the pension scheme introduced under the said chapter of this statutes or to continue under the C.P.F. Scheme within a period of 6 months w.e.f. 27.5.1987 i.e. from the date the above new chapter came into force. 3. 3. Notwithstanding anything contained in Statute-47 the employees of this University who opt for the pension scheme shall retire at the age applicable to the Government servants in the State of Orissa from time to time. 4. The employees shall exercise their option in the prescribed from within the prescribed date, i.e., by 26.11.87 to conditional option shall be accepted. Option once exercised shall be final. 5. The newly recruited employees and those recruited after the new chapter came into force in the University, shall exercise their option either for the C.P.F. Scheme or for Pension Scheme within one year of their appointment or from the date the new chapter came into force whichever is earlier. 6. The employees who are below 58 years of age shall submit their option paper in quadruplicate to their respective controlling officers in due time and the controlling officer shall retain one copy with them and rest three copies be forwarded to the Registrar, OUAT. The option papers should reach to the Registrar on or before the prescribed date. 7. If any employee fails to exercise the required option within the prescribed time limits, such employee shall deemed to have opted for the CPF Scheme. By Order of the Vice-Chancellor Sd/- B. Sarangi Registrar.” 11. From the above notification, it appears that the employees of the OUAT who are under CPF Scheme have been allowed to switch over to Pension Scheme within a period of six months from 27.5.1987 and this facility has been given to the existing employees. At the same time, the above notification also gave option to the newly recruited employees employed after such notification to exercise the same within a period of one year. It is found from the above notification that the option once exercised shall be final. Annexure-2 shows that vide Office Order No. 27750 dated 20.8.1988, the option given by the present petitioner along with other employees of the OUAT, in pursuance of the aforesaid notification, has been accepted to switch over to the Pension Scheme. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the option has become final as per the notification, that should be taken as final one for the petitioner. 13. In reply to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the option has become final as per the notification, that should be taken as final one for the petitioner. 13. In reply to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the OUAT submitted that Vide Annexure-A, the OUAT made Statute, 1989 which was published in Orissa Gazette on 17.4.1989 and this statute was framed under OUAT Act, 1965. He further submitted that Chapter-V relates to the Terminal Benefits and as such the statute came into force from 17.4.1989. He further submitted that according to Statute 36(2) of said Statute, 1989, the option exercised once under the Statute is final. Statute 36 of Chapter-V of Statute, 1989 is placed below for better appreciation: “36(1) The existing employees shall exercise their option in writing either for the Pension Scheme or the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme under Statute 35 within a period of six months from the date these Statutes come into force. The employees recruited thereafter to the service of the University shall exercise their option either for the Pension or Contributory Provident Fund Scheme within a period of six months of their appointment: Provided that the employees who have crossed the age of 58 years but have not attained the age of 60 years shall also have the right to exercise their option as aforesaid within a period of six months from the date of these Statutes come into force, but not later than one month prior to the date they attain the age of 60 years: Provided further that those persons who have retired on or after the first day of April, 1985 shall have the right to exercise their option to come over to the Pension Scheme within a period of six months from the date of these Statutes come into force, subject to the following:- (i) They shall deposit Pension and/or Gratuity for the services rendered under Government and/or University along with the interest thereon from the date of receipt till the date of deposit with the University. (ii) They shall deposit the employers share of C.P.F. along with the interest thereon from the date of receipt till the date of deposit. (iii) The option shall not be valid until the whole amount as above has been deposited. (ii) They shall deposit the employers share of C.P.F. along with the interest thereon from the date of receipt till the date of deposit. (iii) The option shall not be valid until the whole amount as above has been deposited. (2) The option as provided above, shall be exercised once only in respect of either Scheme which shall be final irrespective of any change that may be made in any such scheme from time to time. The fact of exercising such option shall be recorded in the Service Book of the employee by the Registrar or such other officer nominated by him. (3) If any employee fails to exercise the option required under these Statutes within the prescribed time limit, he/she shall be deemed to have opted for the Pension Scheme.” 14. From the aforesaid provisions, it appears that Statute-36 of the said Statute, 1989 has got marginal heading “OPTION.” According to purposive interpretation, the heading “OPTION” specifically inserted carries the intention of the framers of the Statute. The provisions of Clause-1 of Statute-36 of Statute, 1989 says that every existing employees can exercise their option in writing either for the Pension Scheme or the CPF Scheme under Statute 35 of said Statute, 1989. Particularly, Clause (2) of Statute 36 very clearly stated that option exercised once only in respect of either Scheme shall be final irrespective of any change that may be made in any such scheme from time to time. It is also made clear that the fact of exercising such option shall be recorded in the Service Book of the employee by the Registrar or such other officer nominated by him. 15. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the OUAT also produced the Notification dated 26.6.1989 issued by the OUAT with regard to the Pension matter. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner challenges such notification on the ground that such notification creates confusion and is unwarranted and uncalled for and, therefore, it is void. According to him, if there is no statute, there is no necessity of issuing Notification on 26.6.1989. On other hand, relying upon the counter affidavit, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite parties 2 and 3 has stated that such Notification being clarificatory in nature to the Statute, 1989 was issued so that the existing employees could give the option. According to him, if there is no statute, there is no necessity of issuing Notification on 26.6.1989. On other hand, relying upon the counter affidavit, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite parties 2 and 3 has stated that such Notification being clarificatory in nature to the Statute, 1989 was issued so that the existing employees could give the option. According to him since OUAT is committed to the welfare of the employees, it has got duty to bring welfare scheme of the OUAT to the knowledge of the employees. So, the OUAT gave option to the employees again to exercise option. He drew the attention of this Court to the operative portion of the said Notification, which is reproduced as under: “xx xx xx xx The employees who have already exercised their option in response to this University Notification No. 23449/UAT dated 11.8.87 and want to elect the same scheme to which they have previously opted, need not exercise any fresh option. In case any employee who has already exercised his option in favour of CPF/Pension Scheme but wants to change his option can do so by exercising a fresh option in the form appended herewith within the stipulated period i.e. by 28.10.1989.” 16. After going through the Notification dated 26.6.1989, it appears that the said notification is clarificatory in nature but it is admitted by the petitioner that being persuaded by such notification, he has exercised the second option. The Notification also shows that such notification has been issued thoroughly on the line of Statute, 1989, as stated above. The last paragraph of the said Notification dated 26.6.1989 shows that the employees who have given option in pursuance of the OUAT Notification dated 11.8.1987, if want to opt the same scheme to which they have previously opted, need not exercise any fresh option and in case of any employee who has already exercised his option in favour of CPF/Pension Scheme but wants to change his option can do so by exercising a fresh option within the stipulated period, i.e. 28.10.1989. It will not be out of place to mention here that the petitioner had given the second option by accepting such Notification dated 26.6.1989. Once he has accepted the notification and exercised his option, he is debarred from submitting that the Notification was confusing and as such, the option exercised by him is not be taken into consideration. It will not be out of place to mention here that the petitioner had given the second option by accepting such Notification dated 26.6.1989. Once he has accepted the notification and exercised his option, he is debarred from submitting that the Notification was confusing and as such, the option exercised by him is not be taken into consideration. Not only this but also, it is admitted by the petitioner that his second option has also been accepted by the OUAT vide Annexure-B series. When the Statute, 1989 came into force from 17.4.1989 and gave option to the existing employees, the issuance of Notification under Annexure-3 giving the employees for exercising their option cannot be said de-hors to the provisions of Statute, 1989. Any beneficial provisions made by the OUAT for its employees cannot be said derogatory or takes the right of the employees unless such notification is against the spirit of the statutory provisions or rules made thereunder. So, there is force with the submission of Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the OUAT that for the welfare of its employees, OUAT has given fresh option according to Statute, 1989 which came subsequent to the Notification dated 11.8.1987. 17. From the foregoing discussions, it is made clear that the petitioner has given two options. He gave first option which was accepted by the OUAT on 20.8.1988 to switch over to Pension Scheme and gave second option to switch over to CPF Scheme and the same was also accepted by the OUAT on 20.12.1989 vide Annexure-B series. It is only submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that being confused by the notification, the petitioner has given second option. When the petitioner was a Professor and after going through the entire notification, he has given option for the second time, it is very difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in confusing position, the same has been accepted. 18. It is also reported in the case of Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner vs. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 12 SCC 610 where Their Lordships were considering the option for joining or continuing with the CPF Scheme. It will be profitable to quote paragraph-21 of the said decision, which is reproduced as under: “21. We may add here that respondent no. 18. It is also reported in the case of Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner vs. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 12 SCC 610 where Their Lordships were considering the option for joining or continuing with the CPF Scheme. It will be profitable to quote paragraph-21 of the said decision, which is reproduced as under: “21. We may add here that respondent no. 2 is a highly literate person and he must have known the consequences when he had opted for the C.P.F. Scheme under his letter of option dated 3rd January, 1992. It was his conscious effort to see that he continues with the C.P.F. Scheme and the said effort was respected by the appellant-University by showing special favour, as his option was accepted even after the time prescribed in the Notification was over.” 19. With due respect to the aforesaid decision, it is clear that if a literate person exercised the option either to remain in CPF Scheme or switch over to Pension Scheme and he further decides to switch over to previous Scheme after the period for option is over, the University cannot be made responsible, but the sole responsibility lies with the petitioner for which Hon’ble Supreme Court did not agree with the view taken by the High Court of Rajasthan and justified the appellant to have considered the option for Pension Scheme as made by respondent no. 2 in that case. 20. Now, adverting to the present case, it appears that the petitioner, being a Professor, has given the option in first occasion and in second occasion also, he has given option which has become final. When he has given option by knowing the consequence and there is no confusion with the provision as discussed above to give option, it is apt to observe that the option made by the petitioner before his retirement to opt for the CPF Scheme is final and he cannot go back to insist upon previous Pension Scheme after the retirement. The Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to CPF Scheme but not to Pension Scheme. 21. The petitioner continued under such CPF Scheme till 2004 when he retired from service. The Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to CPF Scheme but not to Pension Scheme. 21. The petitioner continued under such CPF Scheme till 2004 when he retired from service. When the petitioner, being literate, has continued for 15 years under such CPF Scheme and could not agitate the same before the authority, but three years after retirement of the petitioner, in the year 2007, suddenly he could be able to realize that he was confused and made such mistake in giving option, it is nothing but an after-thought. So, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that being confused, he has given second option. 22. In the case of National Council of Educational Research and Training vs. Shyam Babu Maheshwari and Others, (2011) 6 SCC 412 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, at paragraphs-12, 13 and 14, have observed as under: “12. We may now consider whether dehors the decision of this Court in R. Subramaniam (supra) the respondent could be allowed to opt for the Pension Scheme having earlier opted for the CPF Scheme while in service. Admittedly, the respondent while he was in service of NCERT had opted for the CPF Scheme way back in 1977 and on his retirement, he had availed the benefits of the CPF Scheme. This Court has held in Krishena Kumar v. Union of India & Others, (1990) 4 SCC 207 , V.K. Ramamurthy v. Union of India & Another, (1996) 10 SCC 73 and Union of India & Others v. Kailash, (1998) 9 SCC 721 that once an employee has opted for the CPF Scheme, his exercise of option was final and he is not entitled to change over to the Pension Scheme because the two schemes are entirely different. It, however, appears that the Government in the Ministry of Personnel and Training by the O.M. dated 06.06.1985 gave an opportunity to Central Government employees who had earlier opted for the CPF Scheme to opt for the Pension Scheme. 13. It, however, appears that the Government in the Ministry of Personnel and Training by the O.M. dated 06.06.1985 gave an opportunity to Central Government employees who had earlier opted for the CPF Scheme to opt for the Pension Scheme. 13. The relevant portion of the O.M. dated 06.06.1985 is extracted herein-below:- "...In the light of these changes, the President is now pleased to decide that Central Government employees who have retained the Contributory Provident Fund benefits in terms of rule 38 of the Contributory Provident Fund Rules (India), 1962 or in terms of any other orders issued in this behalf, may be allowed another opportunity to opt for the Pension Scheme as laid down in the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The option is open to those Government employees who were in service on the 31st March, 1985 and retiring from service on or after that date. The option should be exercised within a period of six months from the date of issue of this O.M. Option once exercised shall be final." 14. The O.M. dated 06.06.1985 has been adopted by the NCERT in its Circular dated 18.07.1985. It will be clear from the language of the O.M. dated 06.06.1985 that the option to an employee to switch over from the CPF Scheme to the Pension Scheme was open to only those employees who were in service on 31.03.1985 and who were retiring on or after 31.03.1985. By 31.03.1985, admittedly, the respondent had retired, his date of retirement being 31.07.1984. He is, therefore, not entitled to fresh option to switch over from the CPF Scheme to the Pension Scheme.” 23. With due respect to the above decision, it is clear that in the above decision, the petitioner has availed the opportunity of exercising option and he has exercised. When there was another notification issued on 6.6.1985 giving further opportunity to the Government employees to exercise option under above new Scheme, as laid down under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the concerned petitioner was denied to opt for the same because he has retired before 6.6.1985 and as such said Rule was only applicable to the employees who were on service on 31.3.1985 or retiring on or before 31.3.1985. Thus, the ratio of the above decision is that the option exercised once has become final, it cannot be changed over because two Schemes are entirely different. Thus, the ratio of the above decision is that the option exercised once has become final, it cannot be changed over because two Schemes are entirely different. But it can be changed over only if the further opportunity given by the subsequent Office Memorandum issued by the Central Government. 24. Now adverting to the present case, it appears that the petitioner has exercised option by switching over to Pension Scheme from CPF Scheme in 1987 and again he has been given opportunity by virtue of Statue, 1989 and also he has exercised the same by understanding clearly the import of such Scheme. It is very surprise that the petitioner having retired in the year 2004 again asked for changing of option by switching over to CPF Scheme to Pension Scheme by referring his earlier option. Since the option exercised by the petitioner has become final, it has reached its finality in view of the above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to CPF Scheme but not to Pension Scheme. Issue is answered accordingly. CONCLUSION 25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled for the CPF Scheme. The OUAT has already made payment of Rs.10,86,174/- to the petitioner towards CPF Pension and of course, the same has been accepted without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner, the Court is of the view that he being entitled for CPF Scheme as per his option being final in 1989, the amount calculated and received by the petitioner by virtue of the order passed in Misc. Case No. 9283 of 2015 arising out of W.P. (C) No. 6506 of 2009 is also final. The writ petition, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.