ORDER : MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J. This review petition is filed against the judgment of this Court dated 09.12.2024 in W.P(C) No.11288 of 2023. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, Sub Regional Office, Kottayam, the 2 nd respondent in the writ petition, is the review petitioner. 2. The writ petitioners are the retired employees of Hindustan Newsprint Ltd.(HNL). The said establishment was later taken over by the Kerala Paper Products Limited (KPPL), the 11 th respondent in the writ petition. This Court, by the impugned judgment, directed the review petitioner to consider Ext. P4 joint option form submitted by the writ petitioners and other similar option forms individually submitted by them through the employer, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. It was also made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of the claim of the writ petitioners and all their claims were left open. 3. The review petition was filed on 28.01.2025 along with an application to condone the delay of 19 days in filing the review petition. The application to condone the delay came up for consideration on 07.02.2025 and the delay was condoned. 4. In paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the review petition, it is stated as follows: “5. In so far as the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No.11288/2023 are concerned out of the 83 petitioners 12 petitioners retired prior to 01/09/2014 and 71 petitioners retired after 01/09/2014 and therefore they are governed by separate and independent directions in Ext P8 judgment. Ext P4 produced along with the writ petition relates to the joint option forms submitted by the then employer of the petitioners vide letter dated 25/07/2019 before Ext P8 judgment. It is submitted that, by the amendment para 11(4) was added to the Employees’ Pension Scheme , 1995 which provided that the existing members as on 01/09/2014 who at the option of the employer and employee had been contributing on salary exceeding Rs.6,500/- shall prefer a fresh option and the time granted for exercising fresh option as per the amendment was one year from 01/09/2014. Therefore the options exercised by the writ petitioners vide Ext P4 is clearly beyond the time limit prescribed in the scheme. 6. Therefore the options exercised by the writ petitioners vide Ext P4 is clearly beyond the time limit prescribed in the scheme. 6. As matters now obtained the Hindustan News Print Limited has been taken over by Kerala Paper Products Limited, the 11 th respondent in W.P.(C) No.11288/2023. It is submitted that, the petitioners have submitted their online options for verification and endorsement by the employer in the light of Ext. P8 judgment but the present employer Kerala Paper Products Limited has failed to endorse the online option submitted by the petitioners. The 11 th respondent in the writ petition has only to validate the options submitted by the employees and forward the same to the EPFO portal before the online facility closes on 31/01/2025. The review petition is therefore filed in the aforesaid circumstances.” Further, Ground 'D' reads as follows: “D. The 11 th respondent in the writ petition the Kerala Paper Products Ltd. having taken over Hindustan News Print Ltd. is to forward the option forms submitted online by the petitioners pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. There is no other further liability for the 11" respondent in the writ petition in this matter. All that the 11 th respondent has to do is to forward the joint options to the online portal of the EPFO before 31/01/2025, which is the last date for submission of joint option forms online, so that the applications can be processed by the EPFO for the petitioners to avail the benefit of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Sunil Kumar’s case.” 5. The review petitioner does not dispute that Ext. P4 joint options were received by the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) from the HNL., the erstwhile employer of the writ petitioners. According to the review petitioner, the writ petitioners have submitted their online option on the basis of Ext. P8 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Employees Provident Fund Organisation and another v . Sunil Kumar B. and others [2022 SCC Online SC 1521] and is now available in the portal of KPPL so as to forward to the portal of EPFO for processing the same. P8 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Employees Provident Fund Organisation and another v . Sunil Kumar B. and others [2022 SCC Online SC 1521] and is now available in the portal of KPPL so as to forward to the portal of EPFO for processing the same. It is stated that there is no other liability for the KPPL in the matter and all that KPPL has to do is to forward the joint options to the online portal of the EPFO before 31.01.2025, which is the last date for submission of joint option forms online, so that the applications can be processed by the EPFO for the petitioners to avail the benefit of the judgement in Sunil Kumar's case (supra). The review petitioner further states that in a similar writ petition, namely, W.P(C) No.16786 of 2023, this Court, by judgment dated 25.10.2024, was pleased to direct the KPPL to endorse the joint option and forward the same to EPFO observing that the direction will not in any manner affect the legal issue whether KPPL is the employer of HNL employees who retired prior to 2021. 6. Heard Sri. N.N. Sugunapalan, the learned senior counsel for the review petitioner, Sri. P.N. Mohanan, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners and Sri. Benny Thomas, the learned senior counsel for KPPL. 7. The only objection raised by the review petitioner is that the KPPL, the present employer has not validated the online options submitted by the writ petitioners and forwarded the options to the portal of EPFO for processing the same. It is stated by the review petitioner that there is no other liability for the KPPL in the matter and all that KPPL has to do is to forward the joint options to the online portal of the EPFO. It is the case of the writ petitioners that they along with HNL, their employer had remitted the Provident Fund contribution on actual salary along with administrative charges which was accepted by the review petitioner. As stated, the review petitioner does not dispute that joint option in physical forms were received by the EPFO from the HNL. Their case is that those joint option forms cannot be now acted upon as the writ petitioners have already submitted their options online on the basis of the judgement in Sunil Kumar's case (supra). 8. As stated, the review petitioner does not dispute that joint option in physical forms were received by the EPFO from the HNL. Their case is that those joint option forms cannot be now acted upon as the writ petitioners have already submitted their options online on the basis of the judgement in Sunil Kumar's case (supra). 8. Unless the employer forwards the option forms after verification to the online portal of the EPFO, the same cannot be processed. The non-forwarding of the joint option forms submitted by the writ petitioners to the portal of EPFO will affect the right of the writ petitioners to get their options processed by the EPFO for availing the pensionary benefits guaranteed under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. At the same time, any direction issued by this Court shall not affect any pending proceedings or future litigation in which the KPPL is a party. In the light of the facts narrated in the review petition, I am of the view that the directions in the impugned judgment will not workout the relief intended and there are sufficient reasons to review the judgment. For the reasons aforesaid and in the light of the judgment of this Court in W.P(C)No. 16786 of 2023 dated 25.10.2024, now placed before me, I am of the view that the impugned judgment can be modified with the following directions: (i) The KPPL, the 11 th respondent in the writ petition shall endorse and forward the online options submitted by the writ petitioners to the online portal of EPFO within one month from today, and shall have no further liability in doing so. (ii) On receipt of the online options, the review petitioner shall process and finalise the same within a period of three months therefrom. (iii) It is made clear that the above direction is issued only to enable the review petitioner to process the online options submitted by the writ petitioners to avail the benefit of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar's case (supra). (iii) It is made clear that the above direction is issued only to enable the review petitioner to process the online options submitted by the writ petitioners to avail the benefit of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar's case (supra). This direction will not in any manner affect the legal issue whether KPPL is the employer of HNL employees who retired prior to 2021, and the issue whether KPPL has any liability towards employees like the writ petitioners who retired from service prior to the take over of HNL, would depend on and would be subject to the decision to be taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.31624/2023. (iv) Since the review petition was filed with application to condone delay and the application itself was brought up for consideration after the closure of online facility on 31.01.2025, the said cut off date shall not stand in the way of EPFO accepting and processing the online options of the writ petitioners as and when forwarded by KPPL. (v) It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of the claim of the writ petitioners for higher pension. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed and the impugned judgment stands modified with the above directions.