JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH) 1. We have heard Mr B.S. Brahmbhatt, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr N.J. Shah, learned A the respondents. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Appl No.11632 of 2008 dated 19.10.2010, the present appellant Hargovindbhai Ramajibai Shrimali has pr this Letters Patent Appeal before this court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Craftsman with Respondent Commissioner of Health and Medical Services since 1979. The Government of Gujarat has been plea introduce a scheme for allotment of plot at concessional rate for its employees vide Resolution 10.2.1999. As the appellant was entitled to avail such benefits, he has applied to the respondent depa vide his application dated 8.3.1999. The appellant had not received any reply from respondent No.3, Co Gandhinagar regarding allotment and so the appellant had sent a reminder application on 11.3.2008 respondents. The appellant was shocked and surprised that respondent No.3 had carried out allotment p of concessional rate plot without considering the application of the appellant and held two Draws on 9. and on 4.10.2007 without giving any reply to the appellant's application dated 8.3.1999. The responden rejected the application on 21.5.2008 i.e., after a period of nine years stating that the appellant was not e for allotment of plot at concessional rate. Against this order, the appellant filed Special Civil Appl No.11632 of 2008 before the learned Single Judge and the said petition was dismissed on 19.10.2010. It order which is under challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Learned counsel Mr Brahmbhatt for the appellant has submitted that the post of appellant wa transferable in nature and once the job of the appellant is proved as non-transferable in nature, he was e to get all the benefits granted earlier to other similarly situated employees and this important aspect w considered by the learned Single Judge. 3. Opposing the case of the appellant, Learned AGP Mr N. J. Shah has drawn our attention to paragraph to 10 of the affidavit filed by the Mamlatdar, Land Allotment, Gandhinagar on behalf of respondent Collector, Gandhinagar and submitted that the same will give all the answers against the appellant's c queries raised by him in this Appeal. 3. Opposing the case of the appellant, Learned AGP Mr N. J. Shah has drawn our attention to paragraph to 10 of the affidavit filed by the Mamlatdar, Land Allotment, Gandhinagar on behalf of respondent Collector, Gandhinagar and submitted that the same will give all the answers against the appellant's c queries raised by him in this Appeal. We have gone through the same and para 6 to 10 of the affidavit r to above is reproduced hereunder: "6. I say that application of the petitioner was of 08.03.1999 for allotment of the plot. That application was pursuant to the Resolution dated 10.02.1999. 7. I say that aforesaid Resolution dated 10.2.1999 has been cancelled by Resolution dated 29.03.2001. A copy of the same is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R II to this reply. 8. I say that as per Resolution dated 29.03.2001 not only the earlier resolution dated 10.02.1999 is cancelled but also the application filed thereunder are also cancelled. Thus, application of the petitioner being 83 of 1999 is deemed to be cancelled. Hence, there is no question of allotting plot to the petitioner pursuant to the application No. 83 of 1999. 9. I say that details in this respect, pertaining to resolution dated 29.03.2001 and way/manner of giving effect to the resolution dated 29.3.2001, are contained in resolution dated 27.12.2001. A copy of which is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R-III to this reply. 10. I say that as per the resolution dated 29.03.2001, application required for allotment of plot was not received and is not received till date from the petitioner's side. That is how the petitioner cannot be allotted the plot. Comparison with the case of Shri Zalamji Lakhamji Parmar as quoted by the petitioner is misplaced in as much as Shri Zalamji Lakhamji Parmar has made an application pursuant to the Resolution dated 29.03.2001 and 27.12.2001. That is how the petitioner cannot be allotted the plot. Comparison with the case of Shri Zalamji Lakhamji Parmar as quoted by the petitioner is misplaced in as much as Shri Zalamji Lakhamji Parmar has made an application pursuant to the Resolution dated 29.03.2001 and 27.12.2001. A copy of the application dated 3.1.2002 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R IV to this reply." In reply to the above contentions, learned counsel Mr Brahmbhatt for the appellant has submitted t application for plot at concessional rate was filed by the appellant on 8.3.1999 according to the Res dated 10.2.1999 but the said application came to be rejected by the respondents by Resolution dated 29 and the said fact was not within the knowledge of the appellant as the appellant had already retire service w.e.f. 30.11.1999. After his superannuation he was not in a position to know about the Resolutio 29.3.2001. He has further submitted that it was never intimated by the respondents to the appellant t Resolution dated 10.2.1999 had been cancelled by the respondents vide Resolution dated 29.3.20 accordingly there was no fault on the part of the appellant and hence the claim of the appellant was requ be considered on its own merits without being prejudiced to any technical aspect. 4. We have considered the entire record as a whole and it appears that except the application dated 8.3.1 other application had ever been made by the appellant to the respondents. It further appears that the app dated 8.3.1999 was submitted by the appellant in light of the Resolution dated 10.2.1999. The said Res had been cancelled by the respondents vide Resolution dated 29.3.2001. Nothing is forthcoming on the that the appellant had ever made any application in light of Resolution dated 29.3.2001 or the Resolutio 27.12.2001. It is important to note that after the first application dated 8.3.1999, the applicant had retire service on 30.11.1999. In our view the learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that si appellant had retired from service and therefore also he was not entitled to be allotted any plot. It is important to note that after the first application dated 8.3.1999, the applicant had retire service on 30.11.1999. In our view the learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that si appellant had retired from service and therefore also he was not entitled to be allotted any plot. So fa comparison made with the case of Zalamji Lakhamji Parmar, as per the affidavit filed by responden Zalamji Parmar had made application pursuant to Resolution dated 29.3.2001 and 27.12.2001, theref case of Zalamji Parmar is no way helpful to the present appellant who had already retired in the year 199 5. So far as the argument that the appellant was not aware about the Government Resolution is concer our view the said Government Resolution being a public document, the same must have been published Government Gazette and therefore, there is no substance in the submissions made by the learned coun the appellant that as he had retired, he was not aware of the Resolutions. We do not find any illegality order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.11632 of 2008 dated 19.10.201 6. In the result, this appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.