R. P. Khosla and Dua ( 1 ) THE petitioner in these proceedings claim a certificate of fitness under Article 133 of Constitution for preferring an appeal to the Supreme Court. ( 2 ) THE first point raised by the petitioner, who has appeared in personl, is that the case involves a claim to property worth Rs. 75. 000. 00 in round figures and he has tried to arrive at this figure while giving various items in paragraph 4 of his petition. He has calculated a sum of Rs. 67,307. 68 Paisa on account of pay and allowances due from 19th April, 1964 to 11th January, 1970, the date of uttaining 6) years of age. He has also added a sum of Rs. 10. 795. 51 Paise on account of difference in rent of private rented house and the standard rent of the quarter belonging to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences from 15th December, 19fc 5 to 11th January, 1970. Rs. 4,745. 00 have been calculated on account of employer s portion of contribution to the contributory fund of the petitioner and a sun of Rs. 1,650. 64 Paise has been taken into account in connection with excess rent demanded for certain quarter. Out of this, he has deducted a sum of Rs. 9. 123. 33 Paise on account of payment received so far. This argument is obviously wholly misconcieved because in the writ petition the relief claimed has nothing to do either directly or indirectly with the amounts mentioned by the petitioner. The claim is obviously too remote and conjectural or speculative and, therefore, cannot legitimately be taken into account for the purpose of application for leave as of right to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court. In this connection, in fairness to the learned counsel for the respondents, it may be pointed out, that he has placed reliance on an inreported Bench decision of this Court in R. L. Butail v. Union of India etc. ,"- S. C. A. No. 63-D of 1965, in support of the contention that if in the, writ peti- tion no money is claimed and also if the writ petition does not involve any property of any value, then no money value can be put on a claim like the present which relates to a service matter. ,"- S. C. A. No. 63-D of 1965, in support of the contention that if in the, writ peti- tion no money is claimed and also if the writ petition does not involve any property of any value, then no money value can be put on a claim like the present which relates to a service matter. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has next claimed the certificate on the ground that the question raised is of great public or/and private importance and that this Court should certify the case to be a fit one under clause (e) of Article 133 (1) of the Constitution. According. to the petitioner, he had retired from Government service with effect from 1st November, 1962, but this is obviously unacceptable because in December, 1963, he himself had addressed a communication (B-23) which is inconsistent with his retirement. Indeed, the Division Bench dismissing the petitioner s writ petition on 2nd November, 1965 had after considering the material on the record come to the conclusion that nothing was finally decided and the resignation of the petitioner was never accepted. The Bench has also observed that the petitioner quite clearly did not intend that the formal relationship of master and servant should be terminated without the settlement of his claim to certain benefits and since that dispute remained pending, the question of the acceptance of the petitioner s resignation also remained pending, with the result that he continued to remain in the service of the Government. Indeed, the Bench considered it impossible to conclude that the petitioner had ceased to be a servant of the Government of India because his resignation was neveaccepted. The petitioner, it may be stated, also sought to make a point by urging that the Division Bench disposing of his writ petition on 2nd November, 1965 had orally announced some order which "is incomsistent with the written order disilissing his petition, though the petitioner has expressly conceded that the order announcing the decision was one of dismissal of the writ petition. It appears to us that the petitioner had misconcieved or misunderstood some observation made during the course of arguments and there is no question of the order dictated by the Bench later being different from the one orally pronounced soon after the hearing. It appears to us that the petitioner had misconcieved or misunderstood some observation made during the course of arguments and there is no question of the order dictated by the Bench later being different from the one orally pronounced soon after the hearing. ( 4 ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, we are unable to certify this case to be a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. This application accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed but without costs.