Judgment : Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged an order dated September 28, 2001 passed by the Deputy Chairman, Dock Labour Board. The petitioner’s husband was an employee under the Calcutta Dock Labour Board. He met with an accident in the year 1990. Although medically treated, he had only partially recovered. He made an application for voluntary retirement which was accepted by the respondents with effect from March 16, 1992. The petitioner’s grievance is that her husband went on writing to the authorities for release of the arrear, bonus, dearness allowance and other admissible dues. One such letter dated October 14, 1996 has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P- 2. The husband of the writ petitioner died on January 25, 1999. The petitioner states that since the admissible dues of her deceased husband were not paid she moved a writ petition in this court in the year 2000. By an order dated July 23, 2001 the earlier writ petition was disposed of by directing the Dock Labour Board to consider the representation of the writ petitioner which was annexed to the said writ petition. Pursuant to the said order the Deputy Chairman, Calcutta Dock Labour Board who is the respondent No.- 1 herein had given the petitioner a personal hearing and by order dated September 28, 2001 held that the representation of the petitioner claiming for unpaid dues of her deceased husband on account of provident fund, gratuity, pension, arrear, bonus and family pension was not sustainable and could not be entertained. The petitioner was, however, advised to submit an application to the Chief Accounts Officer of the Calcutta Dock Labour Board along with an attested copy of the Certificate of Death of her deceased husband for releasing the unpaid dues which were calculated in the said order, to the legal heirs of her deceased husband after necessary formalities in terms of the existing rules and guidelines of the Board in this regard. It appears that after this order was passed the petitioner made several representations in different years to the respondents authorities. Many such letters are almost identical although their dates were different. Ultimately, the petitioner decided to challenge the order dated September 28, 2001 passed by the respondent No.- 1 by this writ petition. It appears that after this order was passed the petitioner made several representations in different years to the respondents authorities. Many such letters are almost identical although their dates were different. Ultimately, the petitioner decided to challenge the order dated September 28, 2001 passed by the respondent No.- 1 by this writ petition. The petitioner’s grievance is that she had been denied a legal right by a public authority which had abrogated her rights. The petitioner has challenged the order impugned on the ground that the respondent No.- 1 had taken a decision in a most perfunctory manner and being oblivious of the fact that a beneficial pension scheme was required to be interpreted liberally. The petitioner had interpreted the letter written by her deceased husband on October 14, 1996 as an expression of his intention to be in the pension scheme and as such it was the duty of the respondents to respond to the call of her husband and by rejecting the petitioner’s claims the respondents concerned had occasioned a serious miscarriage of justice. A further point had been taken by the petitioner that the respondent No.- 1 instead of advising the petitioner to submit an application to the Chief Accounts Officer for releasing the unpaid dues after observing necessary formalities should himself had taken the initiative to direct his subordinate officers to make payment of such unpaid dues. This the petitioner has cited as an example of non-application of mind. The respondents Nos.- 1 to 4 have filed an Affidavit-in-Opposition affirmed by Sri Nirmal Kumar Ghosh who was the Deputy Chairman of the Calcutta Dock Labour Board. According to the respondents the writ petition was not maintainable on the ground of delay as the same had been filed nine years after the date of exercising option for switching over from Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to the Pension Scheme the last date for which was March 31, 1997. A notification to this effect was issued by the Union of India and the respondents were the implementing authorities. Neither the Union of India nor the Board has been made a party to the petition. The petitioner’s husband had failed to avail himself of this opportunity within the said date. A notification to this effect was issued by the Union of India and the respondents were the implementing authorities. Neither the Union of India nor the Board has been made a party to the petition. The petitioner’s husband had failed to avail himself of this opportunity within the said date. The respondents had no authority to alter the said circular in any manner whatsoever nor did the petitioner have any right to pray for extension of the term of the said circular. The respondents have referred to the Calcutta Dock Labour Board Registered Workers Pension and Gratuity Rules which came into force with effect from January 1, 1979. It was specifically provided in the said rules that the same would be applicable to all registered workers of the Board registered on or after January 1, 1979. The petitioner became a registered worker with effect from July 1, 1970. After the introduction of the said scheme the Board from time to time had issued several circulars inviting options from registered workers who had been registered before January 1, 1979 as well. Copies of some such notices have been annexed to the affidavit of the answering respondents. The husband of the petitioner never exercised his option. Rather he opted to remain in the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme until the date of his retirement from the services of the Board on March 16, 1992. According to the respondents since the husband of the petitioner had not opted for any Pension Scheme he was paid all admissible amounts on account of his Provident Fund and Gratuity along with other retirement benefits. The Central Government had informed the Chairmen of all the major ports and the respondent No.- 1 that the port and dock employees who were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme had been given repeated options in the past to switch over to the Pension Scheme. The Central Government had informed the Chairmen of all the major ports and the respondent No.- 1 that the port and dock employees who were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme had been given repeated options in the past to switch over to the Pension Scheme. The request of some Contributory Provident Fund beneficiaries to come under the Pension Scheme had been examined and it was decided inter alia that the contributory provident fund beneficiaries who were in service on January 1, 1986 but had since retired and who had been paid their retirement benefits under this Contributory Provident Fund Scheme would have now an option to have their retirement benefits calculated under the Bonus Scheme provided they refunded the Dock Labour Board’s contribution to the contributory provident fund and interest thereon drawn by them at the time of settlement of the contributory provident fund account. Such option was to be exercised latest by March 31, 1997 for those contributory provident fund beneficiaries who were in service on January 1, 1986, but had since retired and in whose case the contributory provident fund had not been already settled would be allowed retirement benefits as if they were borne on pensionable establishment unless they specifically opted by March 31, 1997 to have their retirement benefits under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. In both the cases the contribution of the Port Trust or the Board to the contributory provident fund together with interest drawn at the time of retirement would have to be refunded latest by March 31, 1997. If such an amount was not refunded by the date mentioned above a simple interest @ 10 per cent would be payable thereon for the period of delay beyond the stipulated date. The respondents assert that the Board had issued a circular dated February 20, 1997 inviting options from the concerned retired employees. The said circular had been widely circulated in the notice board of the office as also in newspapers. The petitioner’s husband had not exercised his option in terms of the said circular. From time to time the last date for exercising such option was extended and the respondents had in fact extended this period up to December 31, 1997. The petitioner’s husband failed and neglected to exercise his option in terms of any of the circulars and within the last extended period. From time to time the last date for exercising such option was extended and the respondents had in fact extended this period up to December 31, 1997. The petitioner’s husband failed and neglected to exercise his option in terms of any of the circulars and within the last extended period. The Board decided not to extend the time for exercising such option any further. The petitioner’s husband had drawn all his admissible provident fund dues with interest accrued thereon, gratuity and other benefits. Long after the expiry of the last date for exercising such option the petitioner asked for a switch over to the pension scheme. In his application for voluntary retirement the husband of the petitioner had specifically stated that he was under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The respondents have also stated that in terms of the S. 5 B (2) of the Dock workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 the Board is bound by a direction which the Government may give to it from time to time. Therefore, the Board was not in a position to extend the benefit of family pension to the petitioner violating the order of the Central Government. According to the respondents the husband of the petitioner was well aware of the circulars but finding that they were not beneficial at the time of accepting the retirement benefits, he did not opt for the pension scheme. And now after so many years the petitioner cannot be allowed to take its benefit. The respondents have also very specifically denied the allegation of the petitioner that the representation dated October 14, 1996 written by the deceased husband of the petitioner made it clear that he had intended to be in the pension scheme or after receiving the same it was the duty of the respondents to respond to the call made by her husband. The specific case of the respondents is that in the said letter dated October 14, 1996 the deceased husband of the petitioner had merely requested the Chief Accounts Officer of the Board for releasing the payment of some unpaid dues. He merely said that due to his illness he had committed a mistake by not exercising the option for the pension scheme at the time of submission of the application of his voluntary retirement. But he never made any request for allowing him to opt for the pension. He merely said that due to his illness he had committed a mistake by not exercising the option for the pension scheme at the time of submission of the application of his voluntary retirement. But he never made any request for allowing him to opt for the pension. To the allegation that the respondents acted in a superficial manner in advising the petitioner to submit her application to the Chief Accounts Officer without the respondent No.- 1 himself taking an initiative to direct the subordinate officers to make payment of the unpaid dues the answering respondents referred to a Board’s resolution by which it had adopted a modified procedure for releasing the dues of a deceased employee. The direction of the respondent No.- 1 as contained in the order dated September 28, 2001 was in conformity with the said procedure. In the Affidavit-in Reply filed by the petitioner there is no specific denial of the allegations made by the respondents in their Affidavit-in-Opposition. The only new point taken by the petitioner is that her deceased husband by an application dated September 18, 1997 had expressed his desire to switch over from the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to the General Provident Fund Scheme. The said letter has been annexed to the Affidavit-in-Reply as Annexure P- 7. It was argued that in the facts of the case the refusal of the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner’s deceased husband to switch over from the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to the General Provident Fund Scheme was not sustainable and it was sought to be argued that the letters dated October 14, 1996 and September 18, 1997 should have been treated as an option to switch over to the pension scheme. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the deceased husband of the petitioner had exercised his option within the prescribed period or the authorities ought to have granted the permission to him to file the option in the prescribed format. The respondents had sat tight over the matter and did not respond at all. After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties it does not appear that the deceased husband of the petitioner filed any application within the prescribed period in the prescribed form. The letter dated September 18, 1997 which has been annexed to the Affidavit-in-Reply has nowhere been mentioned in the writ petition. After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties it does not appear that the deceased husband of the petitioner filed any application within the prescribed period in the prescribed form. The letter dated September 18, 1997 which has been annexed to the Affidavit-in-Reply has nowhere been mentioned in the writ petition. On the contrary the writ petitioner has specifically mentioned that the representation dated October 14, 1996 written by the deceased husband of the petitioner made it very clear that he had intended to be in the pension scheme. The writ petitioner is also aggrieved by the alleged inaction on the part of the respondents after receiving that letter. It also does not appear that the petitioner referred to the letter, dated September 10, 18, 1997 at the hearing before the respondent No.- 1. On the contrary from the letter, dated September 29, 2005 written by the petitioner, it appears that she had very candidly written that her husband had kept himself in touch with the concerned office till 1996. She further referred to the letter dated October 14, 1996 as a proof of her claim that her husband had exercised option. She also very specifically had mentioned that since her husband was lying ill, he could not file any application within the stipulated time. In this letter also she did not refer to any other letter written by her husband after October 14, 1996. In such view of the matter and in view of the very specific case made out in the writ petition as well as in different letters the letter annexed to the writ petition may not be taken to be a valid exercise of option for switching over from the contributory provident fund to the pension scheme. On the other hand the respondents are very specific in their assertion that the petitioner’s deceased husband had never applied for coming under the pension scheme in any prescribed form and within the stipulated period. In the absence of any explanation as to why this document i.e. the letter, dated September 18, 1997 was not disclosed earlier no reliance can be placed thereon. In the absence of any explanation as to why this document i.e. the letter, dated September 18, 1997 was not disclosed earlier no reliance can be placed thereon. It is only for the first time that she decided to annex this letter to the Affidavit-in-Reply which, if accepted, would amount to giving it a complete go-bye to the earlier case of the petitioner herself i.e. because of his illness her husband could not file any application within the stipulated time and in the prescribed format. Moreover, a close look at the said letter dated September 18, 1997 suggests that this was not an application for switching over from the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to the General Provident Fund Scheme. All that her husband had purported to write was that he was lying ill and was not in a position to go to the office of the respondents which, he said, he would after recovery from his illness. It was only in this context that he had expressed his desire to switch over from the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to the General Provident Fund Scheme. There was a further request to the Chief Accounts Officer to see to it that he received the pension at the old age. This was no application at all. An application in order to be valid had to be validly filed, the option had to be validly exercised after validly complying with all the procedural requirements. Even if this letter had reached the respondents they cannot be blamed if they had refused to act on the basis of such casual expression of a pious wish casually mentioned in a letter. The petitioner had relied on three judgments. The first one was S.K. Mastan Bee-vs.-General Manager, South Central Railway and another, reported in (2003) 1 S.C.C. 184 . The facts of that case are entirely different. In that case the widow of the deceased employee of the respondent after a long time claimed that she was entitled to family pension on the death of her husband. But because of her ignorance she could not stake her claim till 1991. The facts of that case are entirely different. In that case the widow of the deceased employee of the respondent after a long time claimed that she was entitled to family pension on the death of her husband. But because of her ignorance she could not stake her claim till 1991. Although the learned Trial Judge had directed the Railways to fix and pay the family pension of the appellant, in appeal the Division Bench held that there were laches on the part of the widow of the deceased employee and confined the retrospective benefit to a period subsequent to April 1, 1992. She then challenged the said decision of the Division Bench by way of a special leave before the Supreme Court on her right to receive pension from the date of her husband’s death. It was in this context that the Supreme Court had held that the appellant therein was an illiterate lady and at the time of her husband’s death she was not aware of her legal right to get family pension. The Division Bench of the High Court had rejected her claim on the ground of delay in approaching the court. The Supreme Court had reversed this judgment on the facts that it was the obligation of the Railways to have completed the family pension and offered the same to the widow of its employee since it became due to her. Here the facts are entirely different and the question of granting family pension did not automatically arise as petitioner’s deceased husband was not under the relevant pension scheme neither did he file any application within the stipulated period despite the same being extended from time to time. It may further be noted that the petitioner’s husband was alive for quite sometime after the last date for filing the application for switching over had expired. As such the facts of that case do not help the petitioner of this case. The next case relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is an unreported decision dated August 6, 2004, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bijoli Bhattacharjee-vs.-State of West Bengal and others, in Civil Appeal No.- 5061 of 2004. Here also the appellant despite being given several opportunities did not opt for pension scheme in time. Her writ petition and the appeal there from had failed. Here also the appellant despite being given several opportunities did not opt for pension scheme in time. Her writ petition and the appeal there from had failed. In further appeal the Supreme Court took into account the fact that the appellant was not keeping well, that she had retired in the year 2000 and several months before her retirement she had filed her option. Hence, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the respondents to permit the appellant to opt for the pension scheme in view of the particular facts and circumstances of the case. As such, this judgment also does not help the petitioner. The next case relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioner was of Lila Sarangivs. - State of West Bengal and others, reported in 2008 (3) C.H.N. 460. In that case the appellant was appointed the Teacher-in-Charge of a School and she came to know from the records that there was no record to show that the option forms and declarations submitted by the teachers including the appellant were sent to the appropriate authorities which was the duty of the head of the institution. As soon as she came to know of it she submitted a representation before the ex-Teacher-in- Charge and she was informed that due to political rivalry there was an attack on the office room of the school and many valuable papers and documents were missing from the almirah. After this the appellant filed a representation before the appropriate authority which, however, took no step nor did give any reply to the petitioner. This inaction on the part of the concerned authorities was challenged by the appellant by filing a writ petition. The learned Trial Judge had dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay. The appellant filed an appeal. The Division Bench had allowed the appeal on a finding that there was no intentional laches on the part of the writ petitioner and that she was still in service. This judgment also does not help the petitioner, as the facts of that case are very different from those of the instant case. There the writ petitioner had already submitted her papers and exercised her option which for some reasons were not transmitted to the appropriate authority and the further fact was that she was still in service. This judgment also does not help the petitioner, as the facts of that case are very different from those of the instant case. There the writ petitioner had already submitted her papers and exercised her option which for some reasons were not transmitted to the appropriate authority and the further fact was that she was still in service. In this case the writ petitioner’s deceased husband had simply not exercised his option within time. And the writ petitioner too in the hearing before the appropriate authority could not establish that any such option in a proper form and manner was exercised by her deceased husband before the last date. Moreover, the deceased husband of the petitioner had not only not exercised the option in favour of the pension scheme he had withdrawn all his admissible provident fund dues which included both his own contribution as well as the Board’s contribution with interest accrued thereon and gratuity and other benefits. And even in his application for voluntary retirement he had chosen to remain in the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme as he mentioned therein that he was under that scheme. In such view of the matter I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petitioner has no legal right to the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. The writ petition is thus devoid of all merits and is thus dismissed.