B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant - petitioner was serving as Manager (Agro Project) in the respondent - Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. His monthly salary with perquisites was about Rs. 20,000/- per month. He was posted at Godhra and looking after the Seed Project Programme in AD and AS department. He had committed serious irregularities in respect of said transactions of seeds and involved in misappropriation and committed forgery, cheating and concealment and thereby caused huge financial loss to the respondent to the tune of Rs. 71,89,367/- by conspiring with Shri Modi, Supervisor (Sales ). Criminal complaint i. e. criminal case no. 67 of 1996 was also filed against him for misappropriation, cheating, forgery etc. Having lost the trust and confidence of respondent, his services were terminated by an order dated 09. 04. 1997 under Rule 44 of the Company Services Rules by paying three months notice pay in lieu of three months notice. ( 2 ) APPELLANT had earlier approached this court by way of special civil application no. 10772 of 2000 praying for pension on the ground that the impugned order of discharge was an order of termination simpliciter and not passed by way of penalty. Therefore, he was entitled for pension but the same was not given to him. Therefore, he first made representation to the Chairman of the respondent - company on 28. 03. 1998 which remains undecided. His said writ petition no. 10772 of 2000 was rejected by S. K. Keshote, J on 18. 10. 2000 (Annexure `c ). However, while rejecting the petition, learned single Judge observed that the petitioner would be free to make fresh representation to the Chairman of the company for alleged claim of pension. If such representation was made within seven days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order, then the Chairman shall decide the same within 15 days from the date of receipt thereof and if the claim was not acceptable, then a reasoned order be passed. Accordingly, the appellant petitioner made representation dated 19. 12. 2000 (Annexure `d) to the Chairman of the respondent - company which was rejected on 04. 01. 2001. Hence, appellant petitioner filed another special civil application no. 4829 of 2004 which was dismissed by A. L. Dave, J on 19. 04. 2004. Hence, this appeal. Accordingly, the appellant petitioner made representation dated 19. 12. 2000 (Annexure `d) to the Chairman of the respondent - company which was rejected on 04. 01. 2001. Hence, appellant petitioner filed another special civil application no. 4829 of 2004 which was dismissed by A. L. Dave, J on 19. 04. 2004. Hence, this appeal. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel Shri Suthar for the appellant submitted that the Chairman of the respondent - company had wrongly rejected his representation. He also submitted that though his first petition no. 10772 of 2000 for pension was rejected by S. K. Keshote,j, he can file fresh petition after rejection of his representation because the learned single Judge himself, while dismissing his earlier writ petition, made it clear that if he makes a representation then the same shall be decided by the Chairman of the respondent - company by a speaking order. It is true that while rejecting the first writ petition, the learned single Judge observed that if the petitioner makes representation to the respondent - company, then the same shall be decided by a speaking order. However, learned single Judge had not reserved any liberty to the appellant - petitioner to file fresh petition in case of rejection of his representation by the authority. In our considered opinion, when his first petition for pension was specifically rejected by the learned single Judge, then second petition on same subject would not be maintainable. Merely because, his representation was rejected, would not give fresh cause of action to the appellant - petitioner to challenge the order. Even assuming for the sake of argument that writ petition after rejection of the representation was maintainable, even then this court would not have interfered with such a reasoned order passed by the respondent company. It is to be noted that this court is not sitting in appeal over the decision of the Chairman of the respondent - company rejecting the representation of the appellant petitioner and therefore in absence of any specific grounds made out in the writ petition, this court cannot interfere with said decision taken by the Chairman of the respondent company rejecting the representation of appellant petitioner. ( 4 ) BARE look at the rejection order passed by the Chairman of the respondent - company rejecting the representation of the appellant - petitioner, it clearly appears to us that under Rule 16 of the Trust Deed of G. S. F. C. Officers Pension Fund Trust Rules which is quoted by the Chairman in its impugned order dated 04. 01. 2001, the appellant - petitioner would not be entitled for pension. ( 5 ) HAVING carefully gone through the order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition on 19. 04. 2004, we are of the considered opinion that the learned single Judge rightly exercised his discretion against the petitioner on peculiar facts of this case, more particularly, when the appellant - petitioner had not thought it fit to challenge his impugned order of termination before this court or any other court. ( 6 ) IN view of the above discussion, this appeal fails and is summarily dismissed. .