ORDER : 1. The present special appeal is directed against order of the ld. Single Judge dt. 13.11.2017. 2. The appellant/petitioner stood retired from service from the post of Executive Engineer on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.05.2014. His grievance was that although he has submitted his option to become the Member of C.P.F. Scheme after the Rajasthan Agriculture Marketing Board Service (Pension) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter ‘the Rules 1995’) and R.5(3) of Rules 1995 envisaged that those employees who have not submitted option they shall be deemed to be a pensioner & member of the Pension Scheme 1995 but it will be the duty of the employee to see that the option form must be received to the concerned competent authority and is properly enclosed in service file/book of the employee just to ensure that the employee who opted to become a member of C.P.F Scheme there may not have any escape to ensure that he remained a member of C.P.F Scheme and obviously for the reason that there has to be a monthly deduction from salary of the employee towards C.P.F. with the equal contribution of the employer. 3. Indisputably, in the instant case the employee submitted his option to continue as a Member of C.P.F. Scheme in terms of R.5(3) of the Rules 1995 and regular monthly deduction from his salary towards C.P.F. till his retirement was made and retiral benefits including C.P.F. was paid to him on retirement and that he accepted as alleged under protest. 4. The complaint of the appellant before the ld. Single Judge was that immediately after he tendered his option to be a member of C.P.F. scheme it realized to him that pension is more beneficial as such without any loss of time, he approached the authorities and it was sympathetically considered but since his request remained pending with the department, he remained under the bonafide belief that pension would be paid to him and the appellant is ready to deposit the amount towards C.P.F. received or may be adjusted under the scheme to become a pensioner under the pension scheme but indisputedly no complaint was made while he was in service. 5. 5. That apart counsel submits that although the option was tendered by the appellant to be a member of C.P.F. but that was not strictly adhered to under the Rules 1995 as such it could not be considered to be valid option in eye of law. 6. The submissions made by counsel for the appellant is wholly bereft of merits for the reason that it was the procedure prescribed while submitting option with no discretion left to the authority either to accept or reject the option furnished by the employee and once the option was submitted with the department in furtherance thereof deduction towards C.P.F. also took place through out while he remained in service any defect in the procedure is not going to nullify the action. 7. After we have heard the counsel for the appellant we find no error which calls for our interference. Accordingly, the special appeal stands dismissed.