JUDGMENT : Mr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.—The petitioner was an employee of the 2nd respondent company at its Estate in Vandiperiyar. The establishment in question was covered by the provisions of the Employment Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioner joined the Provident Fund Scheme on 01.04.1963 when he was 26 years old and he attained the age of superannuation on 01.04.1995. It is stated that since his retirement benefits were not paid to him he continued in the employment of the 2nd respondent till 2001 with all statutory benefits. It is admitted that the petitioner was not a member of the Employees Family Pension Scheme,1971. The issue in the instant writ petition pertains to the entitlement of the petitioner to the benefit of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, which was notified in the Gazette dated 16.11.1995. It is the case of the petitioner that, while he submitted his option for membership under the aforementioned Scheme on 22.04.1996, and also remitted an amount of Rs. 6,330/- in order to regularise the pensionable service from 01.04.1971 to 15.11.1995 as stipulated in Ext.P1 notice issued from the office of the 1st respondent in connection with the implementation of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, the 1st respondent denied the benefits of the aforementioned Scheme to the petitioner vide proceedings dated 16.12.2005, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3(a) in the writ petition. Aggrieved by Ext.P3(a) order, the petitioner approached this Court through W.P.(C).No.28793 of 2008 and by Ext.P4 judgment this Court directed the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter after hearing the petitioner. Thereafter, the 1st respondent proceeded to pass Ext.P4(a) order dated 15.12.2008 wherein it was found that as per the provisions of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, a person, to qualify for membership under the Scheme, had to exercise his option before attaining the age of 58 years and before the authorisation of the Provident Fund account. It was found that, inasmuch as the petitioner had exercised his option on 22.04.1996 after attaining the age of 58 years, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, and his claim for pensionary benefit was rejected. In the writ petition, Ext.P4 (a) order of the 1st respondent is impugned. 2. It was found that, inasmuch as the petitioner had exercised his option on 22.04.1996 after attaining the age of 58 years, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, and his claim for pensionary benefit was rejected. In the writ petition, Ext.P4 (a) order of the 1st respondent is impugned. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent wherein Ext.P4(a) order is sought to be justified for the reasons contained therein. In particular, it is pointed out with reference to paragraph 6A of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, that the membership of an employee under the Scheme would cease on his attaining the age of 58 years. It is thereafter pointed out that inasmuch as the petitioner in the instant writ petition had exercised his option only after completion of 58 years, his application could not be considered for the benefit of the Scheme and it was under those circumstances that it was rejected by Ext.P4(a) order. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing counsel for the 1st respondent, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, was first notified in the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part-II dated 16.11.1995, the Scheme was subsequently amended in 1996 and 1999. I find that the reliance placed by the 1st respondent, while passing Ext.P4(a) order denying the benefit of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, to the petitioner, is on the provisions of paragraph 6A of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, which took effect only from 06.03.1999. In other words, during the period from 16.11.1995 to 06.03.1999, the provisions of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, as they then stood, did not contemplate that an option had to be exercised, by an employee seeking membership to the pension Scheme, before he attained the age of 58 years. In other words, during the period from 16.11.1995 to 06.03.1999, the provisions of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, as they then stood, did not contemplate that an option had to be exercised, by an employee seeking membership to the pension Scheme, before he attained the age of 58 years. In fact, a reading of the provisions of paragraph 6 and 7 of the Employees Pension Scheme as it stood during the relevant time indicates that persons such as the petitioner, who were members of the Employees Provident Fund, but not members of the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971, could exercise their option to join the Scheme, as per the provisions of paragraph 17 therein, from 16.11.1995 onwards. Paragraph 17 of the Scheme refers to the payments that had to be made on the exercise of option by the employee in question. In the instant case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner was always ready and willing to make the payments necessary for obtaining a membership under the Scheme. In Ext.P4(a) order, the application put in by the petitioner for membership under the Scheme has been rejected solely on the ground that he had not exercised his option for membership under the Scheme within the time contemplated under the Scheme. As already noted above, the provisions of paragraph 6A which indicate that a person could not continue as a member of the Scheme after he had attained the age of 58 years was introduced only with effect from 1999, and therefore, could not have been a ground on which an application preferred by the petitioner in the year 1996 was rejected. I find that this aspect has escaped the notice of the 1st respondent while passing Ext.P4 (a) order which is impugned in the writ petition. 5. Resultantly, I find that Ext.P4(a) order cannot be legally sustained on the reasons stated therein and accordingly, I quash the same. The writ petition is therefore allowed by quashing Ext.P4(a) order and directing the 1st respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for the benefit of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, in the light of the provisions of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, as they stood during the relevant period, and after considering the payments made by the petitioner towards becoming a member of the Scheme during the relevant period. Considering the fact that, the application for the benefit of the Scheme was put in by the petitioner during the year 1996, and it is almost 20 years since the petitioner superannuated from the 2nd respondent company, the 1st respondent is directed to take the decision in the matter within an outer time limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner or his representative. The 1st respondent shall strictly adhere to the time limit specified in the judgment taking note of the fact the petitioner is now fairly advanced in age.