JUDGMENT : Sabina, J. 1. Appellants have filed the appeal challenging the order dated 16.4.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Single Judge had erred in allowing the writ petition and directing appellants to compute the amount of Provident Fund deducted from the salary of the respondent and adjust the same against the amount of Contributory Fund paid to him in the year 2001 and then release the pensionary benefits to the respondent after adjusting the amount of Contributory Provident Fund paid to him. In-fact, respondent had never given his option for pension scheme and had received the Contributory Provident Fund after his retirement in the year 2002. Respondent himself had moved an application for release of his Contributory Provident Fund. However, writ petition had been filed in the year 2007 and the same was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the appeal and has submitted that respondent had opted for pension scheme on 23.3.1990 in terms of Circular dated 2.1.1990. The said application had been rightly considered by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. 4. Admittedly, respondent was an employee under the appellants and had retired from service on 31.7.2001. Respondent had challenged the order of penalty dated 30.10.2001. However, the learned Single Judge had held that no interference could be made with regard to the order of penalty. It was also held by the learned Single Judge that the appellants could be justified in treating the respondent as their regular employee only from 28.12.1970, when he was appointed on regular pay-scale with them and was later confirmed on 7.7.1971. 5. So far as the above two findings of the learned Single Judge are concerned, the same are not under challenge in this appeal. 6. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent by holding that respondent had opted for pension scheme on 23.3.1990. However, we are unable to agree with the said observation of the learned Single Judge. Copy of the option form allegedly submitted by the respondent is available on record. However, a perusal of the same reveals that the said option form does not bear any dispatch number, nor, there is any receipt of the said application issued by the appellants available on record. Copy of the option form allegedly submitted by the respondent is available on record. However, a perusal of the same reveals that the said option form does not bear any dispatch number, nor, there is any receipt of the said application issued by the appellants available on record. Appellants have specifically denied that the said option was ever submitted by the respondent. Learned Single Judge has held that the signatures of the Assistant Divisional Manager on the option form tallied with the forwarding letter dated 16.3.1990. However, we have carefully gone through the letter dated 16.3.1990, but the said letter cannot be said to be a forwarding letter. Rather, vide the said letter, intimation was given to the concerned employees to submit their option upto 1.4.1990 with regard to the pension scheme. The signatures of the Assistant Divisional Manager on letter dated 16.3.1990 also do not, prima facie, tally with the signatures on the option form allegedly submitted by the respondent. Be that as it may, it is not safe for this Court to given an opinion with regard to the comparison of signatures on the letter dated 16.3.1990 and the alleged option form submitted by the respondent. 7. As per the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees Pension Regulations, 1989, which came into force w.e.f. 1.4.1989, option could be given in writing by a regular employee for pensionary and gratuity benefits within 90 days from the date of publication of the said Regulations. However, the said Regulations were later amended vide Office Order dated 28.5.1996 and the said order reads as under:- "OFFICE ORDER In pursuance of the Corporation Resolution No. 01/94 dated 16.12.1994 and as per approval conveyed by the State Government vide letter No. F.18(24)/Pari/88 dated 31.10.95, the following amendment in Sub Regulation (L) of Regulation 3 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees Pension Regulation 1989 is hereby made as under:- Existing words Amended words Any existing employee who does not exercise the option within the specified period of 90 days shall be deemed to have exercised option in favour of the Pension & GPF Regulations. Any existing employee who does not exercise the final option in favour of pension within the specified period of 90 days, shall continue to be regulated under the RSRTC CPF Regulation 1964. Any existing employee who does not exercise the final option in favour of pension within the specified period of 90 days, shall continue to be regulated under the RSRTC CPF Regulation 1964. This will come into force with effect from 1.4.1989, Notification for implementation of the said amendment is being issued separately." 8. Since respondent had failed to submit his option for pension scheme, as per the Office Order dated 28.5.1996, he was to continue to be regulated under the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Contributory Provident Fund Regulations, 1964. Respondent had moved application on 22.1.2002 for release of his Contributory Provident Fund. The said application was accompanied by affidavit of the respondent, wherein it was stated by the respondent that he was presently member of Contributory Provident Fund. The said application as well as the affidavit are available on record. 9. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that contributory fund was disbursed to the respondent on 12.2.2002. Respondent, however, filed the writ petition in the year 2007 alleging that he was entitled to receive pension. The writ petition filed by the respondent was liable to be dismissed, as it had been filed after delay and respondent had himself received the amount of Contributory Provident Fund stating in his affidavit that he was a member of the Contributory Provident Fund. Moreover, respondent had never opted for pension scheme and as per the Office Order dated 28.5.1996 respondent continued to be regulated under the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Contributory Provident Fund Regulations, 1964. The said Office Order came into force w.e.f. 1.4.1989. 10. Respondent also cannot draw any benefit from the amended Notification dated 15.6.1996 because as per the said Notification, it was only the employees, who had been appointed after 1.4.1989, were not required to give option for the pension scheme because the said employees had got employed after the pension scheme came into effect. 11. Thus, in view of above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the order dated 16.4.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, it was ordered that pensionary benefits be granted to the respondent after adjusting the contributory fund paid to him, is liable to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.4.2014, whereby, the respondent was granted the relief of pensionary benefits after adjusting the contributory fund paid to him is set aside.