ORDER : 1. The petitioner has prayed that the respondents should be directed to consider his representation dated 16.11.2010 and to grant him family pension. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be the lawfully wedded husband of one, Smt. Vasanthi G. Bhat, who was working as a clerk with the respondent, the Canara Bank. However, during the course of her service, she expired on 02.02.2009. Although a daughter was born during the marriage, even the daughter, Chethna G. Bhat, expired on 16.08.2006. By letter dated 27.10.2010, the petitioner informed the respondent- Bank that he is eligible to receive the family pension. On 13.11.2010, the Bank informed the petitioner to submit the pension papers, along with the death certificate of late Smt. Vasanthi G. Bhat. On 16.11.2010, the petitioner submitted his pension application, along with the death certificate of Smt. Vasanthi G. Bhat. Subsequently, the petitioner remarried on 22.10.2010. By letter dated 24.09.2012, the petitioner again requested the Manager of the Bank to sanction the pension. However, so far, the pension has not been sanctioned. Hence the present petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Sachin B.S. the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the petitioner is entitled to receive the family pension between the period of 02.02.2009 and 22.10.2010. For, during the said period, he was a widower. It is only on 22.10.2010, that he had remarried. But, even for the interim period mentioned above, the petitioner has not been paid his family pension. Therefore the prayer made by him. 4. On the other hand, Mr. T.P. Muthanna, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, submits that prior to coming into force of the Canara Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995, the employees of the Bank were entitled to receive provident fund. According to the Bank, a total amount of Rs. 3,40,706.48/- was deposited in favour of Smt. Vasanthi G. Bhat. Therefore, by letter dated 27.10.2010, the Bank informed the petitioner that in case he seeks the benefit of the Pension Scheme, and especially of the Family Pension, he is required to deposit the said amount of Rs. 3,40,706.48/- with the Bank. Consequently, the petitioner deposited the said amount. 3,40,706.48/- was deposited in favour of Smt. Vasanthi G. Bhat. Therefore, by letter dated 27.10.2010, the Bank informed the petitioner that in case he seeks the benefit of the Pension Scheme, and especially of the Family Pension, he is required to deposit the said amount of Rs. 3,40,706.48/- with the Bank. Consequently, the petitioner deposited the said amount. However, when the petitioner was informed that since he has remarried, he would be disentitled from receiving the family pension, by letter dated 18.11.2010, he requested the Bank to refund the provident fund amount deposited by him. The said provident fund amount has been refunded to the petitioner. Since the petitioner has already received the provident fund, he is disentitled from claiming the benefit of the family pension. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner admits the fact that the amount of Rs. 3,40,706.48/- has, indeed, been refunded to the petitioner. But, despite the refunding of the said amount, the learned counsel still insists that the petitioner is entitled to receive the family pension for the interim period of 02.02.2009 and 22.10.2010. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. An employee, or his dependant, cannot take the benefit of the provident fund and the pension scheme simultaneously. An employee, or his dependant, is entitled either to receive the provident fund, or to receive the benefit of pension under the Pension Regulations. Thus, it is a case of being either/or. Hence, once the petitioner has been refunded the provident fund amount of Rs. 3,40,706.48/- he cannot seek the benefit of family pension. Therefore, he is disentitled to receive the family pension for the period of 02.02.2009 and 22.10.2010. Admittedly, the petitioner has received the aforementioned amount. Hence the petitioner is not justified in claiming that his representation dated 16.11.2010, should be considered. For, the consideration of the said representation would merely be a formality, and will not serve any fruitful purpose. Moreover, once the provident fund amount has been received by the petitioner, he cannot be granted the benefit of family pension. 8. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. It is, hereby, dismissed. No order as to costs.