Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 765 (GUJ)

Natwarlal Garbaddas Patel v. State of Gujarat

2013-12-21

BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J.B.PARDIWALA

body2013
JUDGMENT : BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of an unsuccessful writ-petitioner and is directed against an order dated 12th June, 2013 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6048 of 2002 by which His Lordship dismissed the Special Civil Application filed by the appellant in which he challenged the order dated 10th May, 2002 passed by the respondent No. 1 refusing to sanction pension to him. 2. Being dissatisfied, the writ-petitioner has come up with the present appeal. 3. The case made out by the appellant in the Special Civil Application was as follows:- (a) The petitioner retired as a Lecturer from the respondent No. 2-College. The respondent No. 3-the Principal of the College had not forwarded his pension-option-form submitted by him on 25th August, 1985 and for not forwarding the said option-form by the Principal of the College, the prayer of the petitioner for pension was rejected by the respondent No. 1. (b) On 20th October, 1999, the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent No. 3 stating that he had submitted the option for pension by sending the form on 25th August, 1985 within the period fixed but as the same had not been approved, he requested the respondent No. 3 to do the needful. A copy of the said letter was also forwarded to the Director of Pension and Provident Fund, Gandhinagar. (c) The petitioner earlier filed a writ-petition being Special Civil Application No. 11378 of 2001 and a learned single Judge of this Court, by order dated 7th December, 2001 directed the respondent No. 3-College to furnish details required by the respondent No. 1 and to finalise the pension of the petitioner in accordance with law within a stipulated time. (d) Ultimately, the request for pension was rejected by the respondent No. 1 by order dated 10th May, 2002. 4. This writ-application is opposed by the respondent No. 3 as well as the respondent No. 1 by filing two sets of affidavits-in-reply. 5. According to the respondent No. 3-College, the petitioner did not submit any option-form and although the deduction was made for the Contributory Provident Fund, he did not raise any objection till 20th October, 1999. 4. This writ-application is opposed by the respondent No. 3 as well as the respondent No. 1 by filing two sets of affidavits-in-reply. 5. According to the respondent No. 3-College, the petitioner did not submit any option-form and although the deduction was made for the Contributory Provident Fund, he did not raise any objection till 20th October, 1999. Although the Government gave further chances by extending the date for giving option, the petitioner did not avail of such opportunities and only in the year 1999, just before his retirement, he decided to opt for pension. 6. The learned single Judge, on consideration of the entire materials on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove that he deposited any such option-form within the time fixed by law or even by the extended time granted by the State Government. The learned single Judge further came to the conclusion that the petitioner had full knowledge that unlike his colleagues who opted for pension, Contributory Provident Fund was being deposited in his account which he acknowledged by signing on the slip forwarded by the College authorities. So far as the previous writ-petition was concerned, the same was disposed of on the first day before issue of notice and the learned single Judge, while disposing of the said writ-petition, did not go into the merits of the allegations but simply directed the college-authority to forward his pension papers. As no such pension paper was available, the college-authority merely communicated the direction of this Court in the previous writ-petition to the concerned authorities. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material on record, we find that the learned single Judge, on consideration of the entire materials on record, by an elaborate judgment, has disbelieved the case of the appellant that he submitted the option-form and that he could not show any material indicating the submission of the option. The learned single Judge also took into consideration the fact that he went on permitting depositing of Contributory Provident Fund contribution in his account and did not protest such deposit knowing full well that if he had really opted for the pension, such amount would not have been deposited in his Contributory Provident Fund account. 8. The learned single Judge also took into consideration the fact that he went on permitting depositing of Contributory Provident Fund contribution in his account and did not protest such deposit knowing full well that if he had really opted for the pension, such amount would not have been deposited in his Contributory Provident Fund account. 8. In such circumstances, sitting in appellate jurisdiction, we do not find any reason to interfere with the just findings recorded by the learned single Judge which is based on appreciation of the materials on record. No reasonable individual, having regard to section 3 of the Evidence Act, would arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the learned single Judge in the facts of the present case. 9. The appeal is thus devoid of any substance and is consequently dismissed. No order as to costs. 10. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and is disposed of accordingly. Appeal dismissed.