JUDGMENT : D.H. Waghela, J. Petitioner, who retired in the year 1991 as Principal of Panchayati Raj Training Center, Sanosara, has claimed encashment of earned leave, L.T.C. and pension against officers concerned of the State Government and Director of Panchayati Raj Training Center. Initially, petitioner was appointed on 18.3.1957 on temporary basis as a House Master by Collector, Bhavnagar. Thereafter, he was appointed as Junior Assistant from 01.03.1958 for three months on temporary basis in and by the institute named "Lokbharti". The same institution appointed the petitioner on the post of Manager with effect from 01.08.1958. Then he was posted as Village Reconstruction Organizer from 01.04.1960, with the stipulation that he would be entitled to monthly salary of Rs. 100/- with dearness allowance of Rs. 45/- and the rules in respect of leave and provident fund applicable to "Lok Seva Mahavidhyalaya " section of the institution shall apply to him. Eventually, the petitioner was sent to Delhi for special training by the order of Secretary, Agricultural and Rural Development and he was promoted as Principal of Panchayati Raj Talim Kendra run by Lokbharti at Sanosara. It was clarified by the Department of Panchayats and Rural Housing of the State Government by letter dated 01.02.1990 that, since the institution of Lokbharti had considered the petitioner's service as continuous under its own rules and policy, the State Government was not required to consider his service as continued. Upon the issue being raised about allowing the petitioner to opt for pension scheme of the Government, in place of contributory provident fund (CPF) scheme, it was clarified by the Panchayats and Housing Department by letter dated 02.05.1992 that the State Government had declined to apply as a special case the pension rules to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has insisted upon claiming pension with an offer to repay the amount of CPF, even as he continued to work as Principal of Lokbharti till 31.03.1994 on reappointment as such with approval from the Government. The petitioner has addressed a number of representations right from March 1991 to October 2000 and ultimately approached this Court in the year 2001. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that his service book was opened since his appointment in the year 1957 and was verified by the Local Fund Department from time to time. The petitioner has addressed a number of representations right from March 1991 to October 2000 and ultimately approached this Court in the year 2001. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that his service book was opened since his appointment in the year 1957 and was verified by the Local Fund Department from time to time. That he was made to subscribe to CPF scheme without obtaining his consent and was not allowed to opt for pension scheme. That his entire service was continued in the institution receiving grant-in-aid and his appointments on various posts were approved by the Government from time to time. By filing an affidavit-in-rejoinder, the petitioner has relied upon the letter dated 18.11.1991 of Panchayati Raj Training Center stating that his salary has been paid fully out of grant-in-aid and he has agreed to join the pension scheme; that his case was required to be accepted as a special pension case and that in other sections of Lokbharti switching from CPF to pension scheme has been allowed. The petitioner has also relied upon Resolution dated 31.01.1990 of the Government of Gujarat in its Finance Department to submit that services rendered by Government employees as teachers or as non-teaching member, to any educational institution before joining administrative department or vice versa has to be considered for the purpose of pension. In fact, a letter was written as early as on 18.9.1987 by Development Commissioner to the petitioner, as Principal of Panchayati Raj Talim Kendra, that employees willing to opt for pension scheme should exercise their option and refund to the Government its contribution to the CPF. 3. As against the above case of the petitioner, it is stated by filing affidavits of Under Secretary, Panchayat Rural Housing and Rural Development Department that the petitioner is not an employee of the State Government but he is an employee of the institution called "Lokbharti" which is a Non Government Organization (NGO). It was apparent from Resolution No. 77 dated 30.3.1958 that the petitioner was newly appointed as Junior Assistant by Lokbharti and the successive orders in respect of service of the petitioner were also made by Lokbharti. It was apparent from Resolution No. 77 dated 30.3.1958 that the petitioner was newly appointed as Junior Assistant by Lokbharti and the successive orders in respect of service of the petitioner were also made by Lokbharti. Thus, the petitioner having been in service of a Non Government Organization and having not been an employee of the State Government, no liability of the Government arose in respect of the petitioner; though it was admitted that Lokbharti, as an NGO, was allotted a center for training under the Panchayats and Health Department of the State Government. It was also true that provisions for meeting expenses of such centers were made by the State Government and appointments of teachers in such centers were approved by Development Commissioner. The principal and, if required, one teacher, were required to be taken on deputation from amongst eligible Government officials for appointment in such centers. It was submitted by learned A.G.P. that options were required to be exercised by such deputationists from the Government who had been appointed in such centers. However, the petitioner having never been deputed by the Government, he remained an employee of the institution and having consciously and willingly accepted the amounts due under the CPF scheme, he was not entitled to claim any benefit from the Government. 4. It is clear from the pleading of and correspondence among the parties that, although the petitioner was initially temporarily appointed by the order of Collector, his regular appointment was by and under the orders of Lokbharti and he continued to serve under that institution till his retirement and termination of his extended service. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner was ever absorbed in service of the State Government and he continued to subscribe to CPF scheme as an employee of Lokbharti. His claim for pension appears to have been based only on the fact that the institution or many of its sections received grant-in-aid from the Government and the section headed by the petitioner served as a center entrusted with training under the Government scheme. That by itself, however, did not vest any right in the petitioner to claim pension from the State Government, by retrospectively exercising an option to switch from CPF scheme to pension scheme. That by itself, however, did not vest any right in the petitioner to claim pension from the State Government, by retrospectively exercising an option to switch from CPF scheme to pension scheme. It is also apparent that the petitioner accepted retiral benefits under the CPF scheme at the time of his retirement and continued to claim benefits of pension scheme with an offer to repay the benefits obtained under the CPF scheme. Learned counsel Mr. Patel heavily relied upon service book of the petitioner in which various endorsements were made by the Director of Panchayati Raj Talim Kendra, Lokbharti, to submit that Panchayat and Rural Housing Department had approved the posting and pay scales from time to time. Learned counsel, however, failed to point out any proof or provision about the petitioner being an employee of the Government, except for the initial appointment, or for being entitled to the benefits of pension scheme of the Government. Without such foundation being laid, it was argued on the basis of judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh [ (2008) 8 SCC 648 ] that non-payment of pension was recurring and continuing wrong which was required to be redressed. Since the claim of the petitioner is not found to be sustainable in law, the delay in filing the petition recedes into the background. Therefore, the judgments cited at the bar in respect of delay and laches are not required to be referred. 5. In the facts and for the reasons discussed here in above, the petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed, with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.