JUDGMENT : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner claiming following reliefs:- “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this Special Civil Application; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that, the petitioner is eligible and entitled to get family pension. (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to give Family Pension to the petitioner and further directing the respondents to give arrears alongwith interest to the petitioner from the date of death of the deceased employee Shri Kiritsinh Manglubhai Sarvaiya;” 2. Essentially, the petition is seeking a declaration that the petitioner widow of deceased employee of the respondent No.3 was entitled to pension. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who is the widow of one Kiritsinh Manglubhai Sarvaiya was appointed with the respondent Gram Panchayat in the year 1980 and since then had worked with the Gram Panchayat and had opted for pension in place of contributory provident fund and therefore, upon his retirement they were entitled to the pension. 3.1. Learned advocate submitted that the case of the husband of the petitioner for pension was perhaps not considered by treating him not to be a regular employee of the Gram Panchayat. However, he referred to the policy decision of the State Government to regularize appointment of all the employees, who are appointed between 1963 and 1984. Reference is made to the policy and the communication dated 09.9.2016. 3.2. Learned advocate submitted that in view of the policy of the State Government for giving an option to an employee either to continue in Contributory Provident Fund Scheme or joint pension scheme, the husband of the petitioner did exercise such option and thereafter, in the year 2006, made a detailed representation. This representation contained all the necessary details made in the service books of the deceased husband and giving out the details that the appointment of the husband of petitioner was against the sanctioned post and was a permanent appointment. Despite this, no response was received, as a result, Special Civil Application No.21640 of 2007 was filed Seeking direction for grant of family pension to the petitioner. 3.3. Despite this, no response was received, as a result, Special Civil Application No.21640 of 2007 was filed Seeking direction for grant of family pension to the petitioner. 3.3. It is submitted that despite the order dated 28.02.2007 passed in aforesaid petition, the proposal of the petitioner for family pension was rejected and the ground for rejection was that the husband of the petitioner had not exercise the option in accordance with law. 3.4. Learned advocate has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai v/s. State of Gujarat and others, in Civil Appeal No.5441 of 2016 to submit that in similar set of facts, the petitioner therein was given the benefit of family pension also. He has also relied upon decision of this court in Special Civil Application No.18634 of 2015, which was a case in connection with another Nagar Palika, wherein same set of facts had arisen. 4. As against this, learned advocate for the respondent-Gram Panchayat submitted that the case of the petitioner was duly considered. However, the petitioner had not exercised his option either to join the pension scheme in order to continue with the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme as per the policy and the option which was exercised was much beyond the time period prescribed to exercise such option. Moreover, the husband of the petitioner had expired in the year 2001 and at that time, all benefits also including contributory provident fund, received by the petitioner without any objection and thereafter, for the first time, in the year 2007, representation was made to claim family pension and thereafter, the earlier round of petition. 5. It is submitted that it in the earlier round of petition also, this Court has not granted any relief in favour of the petitioner though same Grounds were raised and there is no change in circumstances. 6. It is submitted that the reliance is placed on the order in case of Gariyadhar Nagarpalika, no right was decided and only direction was given for considering the representation. 7. In rejoinder, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that at the relevant time, it was the duty of the employer to bring to the notice of the husband of the petitioner the aspect of exercising option for pension scheme and therefore, delay. if any, in exercising search option, cannot be treated against the petitioner. 8. 7. In rejoinder, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that at the relevant time, it was the duty of the employer to bring to the notice of the husband of the petitioner the aspect of exercising option for pension scheme and therefore, delay. if any, in exercising search option, cannot be treated against the petitioner. 8. The Court has heard learned advocate for the rival parties and perused the documents placed on record. The petitioner is the widow of one Kiritsinh Manglubhai Sarvaiya, who was appointed as a Peon on daily wage basis and was made permanent w.e.f. 01.01.1981 by resolution dated 27.12.1980 passed by the Chittial Gram Panchayat. The husband of petitioner was treated as permanent employee against a sanctioned post and was put in the pay scale applicable. It appears that on 10.09.2001, the husband of the petitioner expired and thereafter the widow petitioner has received all the benefits towards his retirement which included contributory provident fund gratuity and leave encashment. 9. Thereafter, it appears that in the year 2007, for the first time, a representation was made by the petitioner, claiming family pension in place of the benefit of contributory provident fund. 10. It appears from record that the case of the petitioner was not considered and hence, Special Civil Application No.21640 of 2007 came to be filed, wherein, this court passed an order dated 28.02.2007, directing the petitioner to make a detail of representation and decision was required to be taken by the District Development Officer. 11. The District Development Officer took the decision as per the directions and communicated the same under order dated 22.01.2008, holding that as per the resolution providing for the pension scheme for the panchayat department, the option was required to be exercised within 6 months. However the husband of the petitioner had not exercise such option and thereafter, the other benefits available to the employee were given to the petitioner in the year 2001 itself. 12. The Government Resolution 29.09.1992 is made applicable to the panchayat department, which provided for exercise of option to continue with the contributory provident fund or to migrate to pension scheme was required to be exercised within six months. The record indicates that the option was not exercised by the husband within the prescribed period. 12. The Government Resolution 29.09.1992 is made applicable to the panchayat department, which provided for exercise of option to continue with the contributory provident fund or to migrate to pension scheme was required to be exercised within six months. The record indicates that the option was not exercised by the husband within the prescribed period. The claim of the petitioner that the option was exercised by relying upon Annexure-B, the court does not find such document to be reliable and part of the record of the panchayat as there is no reference of such exercise of option in writing in the record of the panchayat and no such reference is made in the impugned order. It is relevant to observe that even at the time of first petition in the year 2007, it was not the case of the petitioner that the option was exercised in time and was submitted to the Gram Panchayt. Had it been so, the same would have been the foundation in the earlier round of litigation. The document Annexure-B is having a signature of Secretary, but hardly legible in any manner so as to treat it as a proper exercise of an option. 13. The Reliance placed by the petitioner in case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai (Supra), it is pertinent to observe that the petition before the Apex Court had proceeded on entirely different footing, where the claim of the petitioner therein who was the widow of deceased employee of the Gram Panchayat was to hold that the deceased employee was appointed within the sanctioned setup as a full time employee and required to be treated as a permanent employee with pay-scale salary and therefore, the Apex Court had found the appointment made of the deceased employee of panchayat in that case to be pursuant to resolution and at the relevant time in the year 1964, the Gram Panchayat was an appropriate authority for making appointment. Therefore, the issue of exercising an option for family pension was never the question before the apex court. 14. The Apex court in a case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v/s. Amandeep Singh and Others, reported in (2017) 2 SCC 766 , hold that if the option for pension scheme is not exercised and after retirement, CPF benefits are received without any protest and without any grievance, thereafter he cannot claim the benefit of pension scheme. 14. The Apex court in a case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v/s. Amandeep Singh and Others, reported in (2017) 2 SCC 766 , hold that if the option for pension scheme is not exercised and after retirement, CPF benefits are received without any protest and without any grievance, thereafter he cannot claim the benefit of pension scheme. The apex court in para 18 has held as under:- “18. Further as per Regulation 4 (iii) if an option is not exercised within a period of six months from the date of issue of Regulations, it shall be deemed that the employee has to continue with the existing Contributory Provident Fund benefit, thus in the event of non-exercise of option within the period prescribed, the employee is deemed to continue in the existing CPF benefit. The deeming clause has been incorporated in the statutory provisions for achieving a purpose i.e. those who do not opt within six months new scheme, they shall continue in the existing CPF benefit. There are no exceptions engrafted in the deeming provisions and the deeming is a legal fiction which embraces all the employees who do not opt for new pension scheme. The suit filed by the plaintiff had been decreed mainly on the ground that notice inviting option has not been personally served on the plaintiff. Whether notice is required to be personally served to an employee before the period of six months as provided in Regulation 4 may start running is the question to be answered. A plain reading of the Regulations does not indicate that period of six months which is provided for submitting an option is dependent on personal service of notice. Although, as noticed above the Regulation has been forwarded on 15th June, 1992 itself to the General Manager of all the Depots and other places and the letter dated 15th June, 1992 further contemplates putting on the notice board in the Head Office and the Depots, the Corporation has thus taken care of circulation of Regulation to all concerned including the Head Office and all the Depots.” 15. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, no case is made out for any interference with regards to the decision taken by the respondent panchayat. The petition therefor deserves to be and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.