JUDGMENT Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - To examine the controversy raised by the petitioner, brief facts relating to the events prior to passing of the orders dated 28/05/2014, 25/06/2014 and 11/08/2014 need to be noted. 2. The Rajasthan Pathya Pustak Mandal (Rajasthan Text Book Board) is a society registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958. The objects and purposes of the Board are to acquire and take over the work and activities of the erstwhile National Text Book Board and with regard to the publication of the books. It is an independent society. Clause 23 and 24 of the Memorandum of Association of the Rajasthan Tax Book Board provide as under:- "23. To regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of the officers and servants of the Board subject to the rules of the Board. 24. To establish and maintain or procure the establishment and maintenance of any contributory or non-contributory Provident Fund and/or pension on superannuation, gratuities, allowances or emoluments for any person or persons who are r were at any time in the employment or services of the Board or who are or were at any time officers of the Board and the widows and families of any such persons and also establish, subsidize and subscribe to any institutions, associations, clubs or funds, calculated by the Board to be for the benefit of or to advance the interest of the well-being of the employees of the Board or towards insurance of any such persons as aforesaid and deal with any such other association as aforesaid. To pay the leave salary and pension contribution of government servants drafted to the Board." 3. Clause 8 provides that the said Board was working without any commercial profiteering or trading motive. The Rajasthan State Text Board Rules 1973 have been framed wherein Rule 29 provides that the Governing Council shall manage in carrying out the affairs of the Board through Executive Council. The Governing Council comprises of the Education Minister of the State as its President and the Finance Secretary, Education Secretary, The Director Panchayati Raj, the Special Secretary, Elementary Education, Director, Elementary Education, Director, Printing & Stationary Department, Director SIERT, Udaipur and two other additional members are nominated by the Government forming the Governing Counsel. There is a provision for co-opting two members additionally. Thus, the administrative and managerial control of the Governing Counsel vests completely with the Government. There is a provision for co-opting two members additionally. Thus, the administrative and managerial control of the Governing Counsel vests completely with the Government. The Executive Council has powers and duties as per Rule 38 of the Rules of 1973 to appoint officers and employees and regulate terms and conditions of their service as per the policy laid down by the Governing Council. It also has the powers to make bye-laws which may not be inconsistent with the Rules for the purposes of efficient disposal of the business and activities of the Board. It has duty to regulate service conditions, welfare activities, salaries, honoraria, allowances, contribution and other benefits of the employees of the Board as per procedure and principles laid down by the Governing Council. 4. The Governing Council framed Rajasthan Rajya Pathya Pustak Mandal Employees Pension Regulations, 1994. The same were approved by the State Government vide order dated 28/05/1994. It appears that the Board requested the State Government to make regulations applicable w.e.f. 01/04/1992 but the State Government turned down the request vide its letter dated 03/09/1994. 5. The case of the petitioner - Rajasthan Pathya Pustak Employees Union is that the Board vide letter dated 19/12/1994 sought option from the employees for pension and almost all the members of the petitioner-union opted for pension. The Board consequently requested the PF Department to grant exemption under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952. 6. It appears from the record that originally the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner sought a list of employees who had opted for pension and the same information was made available to it by the respondent-Board but thereafter no further decision was taken at the level of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. At the same time, it is submitted by the petitioner-union that the respondents did not act on the Pension Regulations, 1994 and therefore, they preferred SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3194/2012 claiming pension under the Pension Regulations, 1994. 7. In reply, the Executive Committee came out with the plea that they had decided to continue with the CPF Scheme till they take a decision as to which of the schemes was more beneficial vide their meeting dated 27/02/1996. 8. 7. In reply, the Executive Committee came out with the plea that they had decided to continue with the CPF Scheme till they take a decision as to which of the schemes was more beneficial vide their meeting dated 27/02/1996. 8. This Court, while disposing of the writ petition No. 3194/2012 vide order dated 19/03/2014 observed as under saving regard to the facts of the case, I find that while the petitioner has referred to the resolution passed by the Executive Council on 27/02/1996, but on being pointedly asked, learned counsel appearing for the Mandal could not show whether an y such decision was taken by the Executive Council of the Mandal, not to extend the benefit of pension under Pension Regulations, 1994 and continue to provide benefit under the scheme of the Provident Fund Commissioner. The petition is therefore disposed of directing the Executive Council of the Mandal to re-examine the matter and take a final view of the matter within three months from the date copy of this order is produced before it." 9. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Board had prepared an agenda proposing implementation of the Pension Regulations, 1994 satisfying itself that the Pension Regulations would be more beneficial than the CPF Pension Scheme, 1995.It also transpires that the Board would not incur any extra financial burden. The said agenda was placed before the Executive Council meeting on 28/05/2014 which decided to implement the Pension Regulations and is sent it for approval to the State Government and the State Government has rejected the said proposal vide its office note dated 25/06/2014 and accordingly a decision has been taken by the Executive Committee to continue with the old scheme vide its meeting dated 11/08/2014. The said State Government decision and that of the Executive Committee are challenged by the petitioners alleging that there was no occasion for the State Government to disapprove the proposal once the scheme had already been approved by the State Government. It is submitted that there was no direction by this Court in its order dated 19/03/2014 nor there was any requirement to again send the matter for approval of the Government. 10. It is submitted that there was no direction by this Court in its order dated 19/03/2014 nor there was any requirement to again send the matter for approval of the Government. 10. Learned counsel further submits that the refusal of the State Government on account of the reasons that new Pension Scheme, 2004 has come into force in the State Government, was clearly unjustified as the new Pension Scheme of 2004, did not apply to the employees of the Board, who were appointed in 1980 and 1990. It is stated that only nine persons have been employed after promulgation of the new Pension Scheme of 2004 while 160 employees were working prior to 01/01/2004. Thus, there is no purpose or nexus to the decision taken by the State Government. Further, it is submitted that merely because there would have been a demand from other Boards/Corporations, the members of the petitioner-union could not have been deprived of a beneficial legislation which was framed for their purpose and duly approved by the State Government. 11. Learned counsel further submits that following Pension Schemes are in-vogue for various Boards and Corporations :- "Rajasthan Agriculture Marketing Board Service (Pension) Rules, 1995, the Pension Scheme for the employees of Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Rajasthan Housing Board Employees Pension Scheme, RSRTC, Pension Scheme for the Employees of Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd." 12. It is submitted further that no financial burden was being incurred on the State Government while for RSRTC and for Pension Scheme of Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd, the State has to pay the amount to meet out of the financial deficit. The further argument is with regard to the reason given out by the State of noncalculation of the effect of 7th Pay Commission. However, it is stated that the Government does not extend a single paisa grant to the Board and there is a surplus amount of Rs. 177 crore 92 lac lying in the shape of fixed deposits of the Board. Learned counsel further submits that the decision is without due application of mind and against the spirit of the Act of 1952. The employees cannot be forced to remain members of the CPF Scheme, 1952 which has not been amended and the Pension Scheme of 1995 has been brought into in-in-vogue solely because it was not beneficial. Learned counsel further submits that the decision is without due application of mind and against the spirit of the Act of 1952. The employees cannot be forced to remain members of the CPF Scheme, 1952 which has not been amended and the Pension Scheme of 1995 has been brought into in-in-vogue solely because it was not beneficial. As the Pension Regulations, 1994 had already been duly approved and option had already been obtained from the members of the petitioner-union, neither the Board nor the State Government can force them to remain under the CPF Scheme. 13. The respondents have submitted their reply wherein it has been contended that as per direction of this Hon''ble High Court, the respondent-Board placed the matter before the Executive Council, who is competent to take decision regarding service conditions of the employees as per Rule 38(P) of the Rules of 1973. The Executive Council in its 259th meeting dated 28/05/2014 (point No. 259.06) directed to circulate HRA, pension amount and other required amount and send the matter to the Finance Department for consent through Chairman of the Executive Council. 14. It is further contended by the respondents that as per the decision of the Executive Council dated 28/05/2014, the matter is forwarded to the Finance Department for consent. The Executive Council I nits 260th meeting dated 11/08/2014 at Point No. 260/03 considered the matter in the light of decision of the Finance Department and take a decision to continue the earlier scheme of employees i.e. CPF Scheme, appointed prior to 01/01/2004 and further the employees appointed on or after 01/01/2004 will be eligible to take the benefit of pension as per the state of Rajasthan Scheme dated 01/01/2004. 15. It is further contended by the respondents that the petitioner-union cannot claim the benefit of pension scheme as a matter of right unless the respondent-Board decided for the same. Since, the Executive Council has decided not to implement pension scheme as per the Rules of 1994, they are not entitled for the same. The action of the respondents is just, legal, justified and the writ petition may be dismissed. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on following judgments to submit that no approval is required in case where the employer is an autonomous body with competence to frame service regulations and receives no financial aid from the Government:- (1) (2014) 15 SCC 774 (Govt. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on following judgments to submit that no approval is required in case where the employer is an autonomous body with competence to frame service regulations and receives no financial aid from the Government:- (1) (2014) 15 SCC 774 (Govt. of UP vs. Preetam Singh) (2) 2008 (3) WLN 564 (Jaswant Singh & ors. vs. State of Raj.) (3) 2014 (1) LLN 617 (Bom) (Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh vs. The Maharashtra State Financial Corporation & ors.) (4) Ram Sumiran Mishra vs. State of MP & ors. (Writ Petition No. 13/12/2013), decided on 13/12/2013 by Jabalpur Bench of MP High Court. 17. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 18. A look at the Pension Regulations, 1994, as noted above, shows that the respondent-Board had sought approval of the regulations from the State Government and the same were duly approved to be brought in force w.e.f. 01/04/1994. Thus, the Pension Regulations, 1994 shall be treated to have come into force w.e.f. 01/04/1994 but option from the employees has been obtained and several of the employees have opted for the pension under the Pension Regulations, 1994. The plea taken by the respondent-Board in not implementing the Pension Regulations, 1994 on the basis that decision was not taken by the council as to which of the scheme is more beneficial to the employees, cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of Pension Scheme to the employees who have opted for pension. The decision as to which of the scheme is more beneficial lies in exclusive domain of the said individual employee who is asked to submit his option. The very purpose of option is to leave the decision with the said employee. In the case of PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, Patiala vs. Amandeep Singh and others: (2017) 2 SCC 766 , the Supreme Court has held that once an option is taken, the concerned employee cannot withdraw the same merely because later on he may consider the other scheme as more beneficial. 19. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, the plea of the respondent-Board in not implementing the Pension Regulations, 1994 is not acceptable. The PF Scheme of 1972 in-vogue under the PF Act, 1952 was later on converted to PF Scheme of 1995 wherein certain Clauses were added regarding option. 19. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, the plea of the respondent-Board in not implementing the Pension Regulations, 1994 is not acceptable. The PF Scheme of 1972 in-vogue under the PF Act, 1952 was later on converted to PF Scheme of 1995 wherein certain Clauses were added regarding option. Thus, even the employees, who were members of 1971 Scheme, were having option to opt out from 1995 scheme. Hence, it is clear that the option and choice is of an employee and not of the employer to examine as to which scheme is most suitable and beneficial to him. The Pension Regulations, 1994, therefore, cannot be said to be in abeyance once the same had already been approved and brought into force by the State Government''s letter making it in force w.e.f. 01/04/1994. The subsequent act on the part of the respondent-employer namely Executive Council of the Board was not in consonance with the Regulations, 1994. 20. However, in view of the directions issued by this Court in the earlier litigation, a decision was to be taken by the Board at its own level. There was no direction to get the approval of the said decision by the State Government as the decision was only with reference to deciding as to which scheme is more beneficial and not whether the Pension Regulations, 1994 were not to be implemented. It is apparent that the issue has been wrongly addressed to both by the Executive Council as well as the State Government to which consent was ought for by the respondent-Board. While examining the decision of the respondent-Board taken in terms of the directions of this Court, the State Government has not withdrawn its approval given earlier vide its order dated 28/05/1994 and thus, in the opinion of this Court, the Pension Regulations, 1994 still remain in-vogue and in force and those, who have opted under the Pension Regulations, 1994 as per the option sought earlier, would be entitled to receive pension. The issue, raised by learned counsel for the petitioner-union with regard to seeking sanction from the State Government, in the opinion of this Court, does not arise for adjudication in the circumstances of the view taken by this Court, as above. The decision taken by the respondent-Board dated 11/08/2014 and 25/06/2014 is contrary to the decision taken by the State Government dated 28/05/2014 still holds field. 21. The decision taken by the respondent-Board dated 11/08/2014 and 25/06/2014 is contrary to the decision taken by the State Government dated 28/05/2014 still holds field. 21. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated dated 11/08/2014 and 25/06/2014 of the respondent-Board are hereby quashed & set aside and it is directed that the employees of the petitioner-union shall be entitled to receive pensionery benefits and their individual claim of pension shall now be decided by the respondents and pension shall be released within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.