1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7443 OF 2003 1.Ulhas Anant Date & others. ...Petitioners vs. 1.Bank of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents. --- Mr.Abhijit J.Khandarkar i/b. P.K.Hushing, for Petitioners. Mr.Girish Kulkarni with Swapnil Deshmukh & Sarika Shah i/b. S.Shah, for Respondent no. 1. Mr.S.R.Rajguru, R.C.Master & Y.R.Mishra, for Respondent no.3. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: 3rd March,2008. P.C.:- 2 1. The petitioners who were in the employment of respondent no.1 Bank of Maharashtra and who have retired after 1.4.1998 have filed this petition challenging the decision of the Bank to give pensionary benefits to the employees retiring after 1.4.1998 as per bipartite settlement. It is common ground before us that the options were given to the petitioner. Two options that were available to the petitioners were (i) to go on receiving pension that they were drawing prior to amendment and (ii) to opt for pension as per the amended clause. At that time, the petitioners admittedly exercised their option and opted to receive pension as per the existing scale before amendment. Not only that they exercised the option but they also admittedly received pensionary benefits. In our opinion, once options were given by the employer two courses of action were available to the petitioners i.e. (i) to go by one of the two options or (ii) not to go for options and to challenge the action of the bank. The petitioners have not only submitted their options but also have received benefits and did not challenge the action of the bank. We have also been shown the order in the 3 case “Suresh K.Punekar and others Vs. The Bank of Maharashtra & another” in Writ petition no.131 of 2004 decided on 26.7.2006 wherein even the challenge on merit that the decision is contrary to the Regulation 35 of the Bank of Maharashtra (Employees) Pension Regulations, has been rejected. 2. Taking overall view of the matter therefore, we do not find any substance in the petition. The petition therefore, fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) ---