JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. The present LPA is directed against the order dated 15/10/2014 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petition being SCA No.10721 of 2013 filed by the father of the applicants-deceased writ petitioner. During the pendency of the present appeal, the appellant- original writ petitioner has passed away hence, the appeal is pursued by his legal heirs. 2. The writ petitioner was seeking directions on the respondent – Corporation to accept the option exercised by the him to avail the pension under the Pension Scheme introduced vide Government Resolution dated 24/08/1994. However, the respondent–Corporation has denied the request of the deceased–employee for the reason that he cannot be allowed to exercise the option at this stage, as he was dismissed from service. 3. The facts, which are established from the pleadings are that the petitioner was recruited as a Drainage Junior Pump Operator in the year 1972. On 01/01/1992, in view of the incident of misbehavior with the Supervisor, he was charge-sheeted and thereafter, he was subjected to the departmental proceedings, which ultimately resulted into dismissal from the service on 12/08/1994. 3.1 The action of punishment culminated into the Reference proceedings being Reference (LCB) No.45 of 1998, and by an award dated 12/01/2004 passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar, the deceased- employee-appellant was ordered to be reinstated in service; with continuity of service and 25% back wages. The respondent – Corporation assailed the said award by filing a writ petition being SCA No.7641 of 2004, which was also dismissed vide order dated 05/07/2004. 3.2 Thereafter, the deceased–petitioner was reinstated in service on 18/04/2004 and ultimately, he retired from services on reaching the age of superannuation on 30/04/2006. 3.3 During the interregnum period i.e. on 24/08/1994, almost after 12 days of deceased-employee dismissal, the State Government through the Urban Housing and Urban Development Department, State of Gujarat, introduced a Pensionary Scheme for the employees of the respondent– Corporation under the provisions of Section 465(3)(a) of the BOMBAY PROVINCIAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT , 1949. As per the said provision, the employees of the Corporation under the CPF Scheme (Contributory Provident Fund) had to exercise the option to switch over to pension scheme; within a period of 30 days from the issuance of the notice by the Commissioner of the respondent – Corporation. As per the said provision, the employees of the Corporation under the CPF Scheme (Contributory Provident Fund) had to exercise the option to switch over to pension scheme; within a period of 30 days from the issuance of the notice by the Commissioner of the respondent – Corporation. 3.4 It appears that the deceased employee(petitioner) filed an application on 03/03/2005 i.e. on the date of the retirement to give benefit of the pension scheme and accordingly, the Executive Engineer, Drainage Department of the respondent–Corporation has acknowledged the filing of the application and also recommended the needful action since the employee had yet not collected his provident fund and gratuity. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representations on 30/04/2006, 08/09/2006, 15/01/2007, 05/11/2009 and 14/10/2010 to the respondent - corporation to allow him to exercise the option to switch over to pension scheme and to grant him pension. 3.5 Vide communication dated 24/02/2012, the respondent – Corporation refused to accept the request of the deceased–employee for grant of pension by assigning the reason of his dismissal from service at the relevant time, when the scheme was introduced. 3.6 The inaction on the part of the respondent–Corporation in extending the benefit was assailed by the petitioner (deceased–employee) by filing a captioned writ petition. By the interim order dated 20/09/2013 passed in captioned writ petition, the learned Single Judge has categorically recorded such facts and observed that the case of the petitioner (deceased–employee) is required to be examined by the higher authority. It appears that thereafter, nothing was done and the matter further proceeded and was finally heard on 15/10/2014. The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition on the ground of delay and also by observing that since the petitioner had received his Provident Fund and other benefits and in view of the changed circumstances and since the petitioner (deceased–employee) finds Pension Scheme as more beneficial, his prayer for claim of the pension cannot be acceded to. 4. Learned advocate Mr.Manthan Shukla appearing for the appellants has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be quashed and set aside since the very vital aspect with regard to the order of the Labour Court granting continuity of service to the petitioner (deceased–employee) has been ignored. 4. Learned advocate Mr.Manthan Shukla appearing for the appellants has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be quashed and set aside since the very vital aspect with regard to the order of the Labour Court granting continuity of service to the petitioner (deceased–employee) has been ignored. It is submitted that once the petitioner has been reinstated; with continuity of service, the respondent– Corporation ought to have accepted his option opting for Pension Scheme; instead of CPF(Contributory Provident Fund) scheme. It is submitted that due to the dismissal of the petitioner (deceased– employee), it was impermissible for him to exercise such option and hence when he was reinstated, on his retirement, he immediately filed his option; but was rejected by the respondent–Corporation by assigning reason of his dismissal from service. 4.1 In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Gian Chand vs. DTC, 2015 SCC Online Del 12528. Thus, it is urged that the respondent–Corporation may now be directed to give all the pensionary benefits and arrears to the present appellants, who are deceased heirs of the original petitioner (deceased–employee). 5. Vehemently opposing the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant, learned advocate Mr.Munshaw for the respondent– Corporation has submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference, as the same is appropriately passed. He has submitted that the deceased–employee did not do anything till he retired at the age of superannuation and after period of almost six years, he has filed a writ petition claiming pension. It is submitted that the petitioner (deceased–employee) was governed by the CPF Scheme and after availing benefit of the Provident Fund, it was not open for him to claim the pension under the Pension Scheme. It is also submitted by learned Advocate Mr.Munshaw that since the petitioner (deceased-employee) was already dismissed from service when the Pension Scheme was adopted by the Corporation, it is impermissible to accept the option which was tendered by the petitioner (deceased- employee), as the limitation prescribed in the Circular dated 24/08/1994 was of only thirty days. Thus, it is submitted that any option which is filed beyond the period of limitation, cannot be accepted and hence, it is urged that the present appeal may not be entertained. Thus, it is submitted that any option which is filed beyond the period of limitation, cannot be accepted and hence, it is urged that the present appeal may not be entertained. 6. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at length. 7. The facts, as narrated herein above with regard to the dismissal and reinstatement of the deceased employee is not in dispute. The Labour Court vide award dated 12/01/2004 directed the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner (deceased–employee) with continuity of service with 25% back wages. 8. It is interesting to note that after the petitioner (deceased– employee) was dismissed from service on 12/08/1994, the State Government vide Resolution dated 24/08/1994, introduced the Pension Scheme to the employees of the respondent–Corporation i.e. after a period of 12 days. 9. Pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court, which is confirmed by this Court, the petitioner (deceased–employee) was reinstated in service on 18/04/2004 and after rendering two years service, he retired on 30/04/2006 on reaching the age of superannuation. It appears that on 03/03/2005, he filled in the option to extend the benefit of Pension Scheme. At that relevant time, he has neither claimed gratuity nor Provident Fund. From the communication issued by the Executive Engineer of the respondent–Department, it appears that such option was further forwarded with the instructions to do the needful to the respondent - Corporation. It appears that thereafter, the option though was with the respondent – Corporation; however no decision was taken in this regard. The petitioner thereafter, filed representations, on 08/09/2006, 15/01/2007, 05/11/2009 and 14/10/2009 requesting the respondent – Corporation to give him pensionary benefits. 10. By the communication dated 24/02/2012, the respondent – Corporation categorically denied to extend him the pensionary benefits on the ground that his option seeking benefit of Pension Scheme cannot be accepted as he was dismissed from service. Thus, on 24/02/2012, the respondent–Corporation has denied to accept the option of the employee. 11. The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition only for the reason that it was a belated claim and since the petitioner (deceased employee) had accepted the Provident Fund, he cannot be extended the benefit of Pension Scheme as it appears to be an afterthought. Thus, on two counts, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition claiming pension. 12. Thus, on two counts, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition claiming pension. 12. We do not subscribe to the view expressed by the learned Single Judge while rejecting the writ petition. It is settled legal precedent that the claim of pension cannot be denied on the ground of delay as it is a recurring cause. Thus, the order of the learned Single Judge, which has failed to recognize the settled legal precedent in such cases where the pension is claimed by the employee, the order deserves to be set aside. 13. Insofar as the second ground relating to acceptance of Provident Fund is concerned, we have noticed that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that only reason which has been assigned by the respondent – Corporation for denying the pension is non-acceptance of the option of pension on the ground that he was dismissed from the service. Assuming that the petitioner (deceased–employee) had accepted the amount of Provident Fund later on. The communication of the Executive Engineer reveals that the petitioner had neither accepted his gratuity nor the Provident Fund on his retirement. The acceptance of Contributory Provident Fund cannot be considered detrimental to the grant of pension, since an employee after his retirement, needs some funds to survive. The petitioner (deceased–employee) had immediately on his retirement and thereafter, requested to grant pension. The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate a very vital aspect that the punishment of dismissal no longer existed, and was obliterated on setting aside by the Labour Court and he was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service. Thus, when the petitioner (deceased–employee) was dismissed from the service and during the pendency of the reference proceedings his status did not change, he had no occasion to exercise any option for claiming pension and when such occasion came, he accordingly filed his option. 14. At this stage, we may refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph No.4 of the decision in case of Gian Chand (supra) “4. 14. At this stage, we may refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph No.4 of the decision in case of Gian Chand (supra) “4. We make it clear that in case the respondent has been denied an option for pension in view of the fact that at the relevant time of option, he was not in service, now that he is deemed to be in service for all other benefits except the monetary benefits, he shall be given fresh opportunity for an option for pension before his date of superannuation.” 15. In an analogous issue, the Supreme Court has very succinctly observed that the employee could not have exercised the option for pension in view of the fact that at the relevant time of filing the option, he was not in service and since now he is deemed to be in service for all other benefits, he shall be given fresh opportunity for an option for pension before his date of superannuation. 16. On the same analogy, we are of the opinion that since the deceased employee had no occasion to file his option at the time of promulgation of the scheme, the respondent – Corporation on his reinstatement should have apprised him about the Pension Scheme. In the present case, there is no documentary evidence to show that the deceased employee on his reinstatement was either made aware of the Pension Scheme or he was asked to exercise his option. On the contrary, it reflects that the deceased employee on the date of his retirement has filed the option to grant his pension, which has been subsequently denied by the respondent– Corporation only by assigning the sole reason that since he was dismissed his option cannot be accepted. In such circumstances, the limitation period prescribed in the Pension Scheme cannot dilute the claim of pension. Such an action of the respondent–Corporation is not only arbitrary; but runs contrary to the tenets of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 17. Under the circumstances, the present appeal is allowed. We quash and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. We also quash and set aside the decision of the respondent–Corporation of denying the pension to the petitioner–deceased employee and following directions are issued. 18. 17. Under the circumstances, the present appeal is allowed. We quash and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. We also quash and set aside the decision of the respondent–Corporation of denying the pension to the petitioner–deceased employee and following directions are issued. 18. The respondent–Corporation is directed to fix and to pay the pensionary amount to the legal heirs of the deceased employee i.e. the present appellants alongwith the arrears from the date of his retirement. We further direct that, in case any amount under the CPF Scheme is claimed by the original petitioner, the same shall be adjusted by the respondent – Corporation; without demanding any interest. Such exercise of extending the benefit as directed above shall be completed; within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the writ of this order; failing which it shall carry the interest at the rate of 6% per annum.