Dr. Balmukund Parikh, the original petitioner, has Challenged the order of the College Tribunal passed on 29-10-1996 in Appeal No. 12 of 1996 (S). Unfortunately during the pendency of this petition, Dr. Parikh passed away on 23-10-2003. His heirs have now been brought on record and are prosecuting the present petition.

2. The original petitioner. Dr. Parikh, challenged his compulsory retirement by the respondents with effect from 94-1996. The appeal filed by him before the Tribunal was dismissed. Today, the heirs of Dr. Parikh do not wish to challenge the order of compulsory retirement hut claim that the arrears of pension, provident fund. gratuity and leave encashment be paid to them on the basis that Dr. Parikh was compulsory retired on 9-4-1996.

3. Ms. Buch, appearing for the petitioner, submits that admittedly the original petitioner had not exercised his option for payment of pension under Death cum Retirement Gratuity Scheme. She points out a Government Resolution dated 20-2-1985 under which clause 8 provides as follows:

8……. shall have a right to exercise an option either (a) to continue in Contri butory Provident Fund Scheme or (b) to come over to Pension a