JUDGMENT : UNITA AGARWAL, J. 1. Heard Ms. Harshal N. Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Jinesh H. Kapadia, learned counsel for the respondent Institution, as also Ms. Shruti Dhruve, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 4473 of 2011, wherein a categorical finding has been returned that the petitioner-appellant herein, who was in-charge principal of the institution concerned, was never a member of CPF scheme, which is one of the pre-conditions for grant of benefits of the Government Resolution dated 5.2.1980. 3. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution dated 5.2.1980 have been extracted in the judgment impugned which are to be noted hereunder: “1. The contribution made by the institution under their own C.P.F. scheme to the employees of the recognized secondary school voluntarily not receiving grant or the pension contribution to be given under the rules in force at that time, whichever is higher is to be deposited in the Government. 2. If the employees of the recognized non-granted secondary schools have joined the C.P.F. scheme, then the contribution of the Government in that regard is to be deposited in the government treasury. However, the cases falling within the clarifications/provisions made vide Government circular dated 29/05/1974 and resolution dated 31/08/1979 are to be regularized accordingly.” 4. The learned Single Judge has further recorded a finding that the petitioner on his own has deposited certain money by opening a GPF account, whereas contribution of the employer side was never deposited in the GPF account. The GPF account was thus not wholly operational. Further, at some point of time, the petitioner-appellant herein had deposited the employer’s contribution on his own and by realising the mistake later, the amount was withdrawn and GPF account was closed in the year 2008. With regard to the applicability of the Government Resolution dated 5.2.1980, it is recorded in the judgment impugned that in view of clauses 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution dated 5.2.1980, teachers of unaided school would be entitled to pension in case they are members of the CPF scheme or the like schemes, wherein contribution from the salary of the employee and that of the employer is refunded to the State Government to make pension scheme applicable to such individual employee. 5. 5. As in the instant case, neither the contribution of the employee was deducted from its salary by the school for deposit the same in the CPF scheme or any other scheme nor the school itself has deposited its part of the contribution. In the said eventuality, there was no question of deposit of such contributions with the State Government and since the conditions of the Government Resolution dated 5.2.1980 as contained in clauses 1 and 2 are not fulfilled, the petitioner-appellant herein cannot be said to be covered by the same. 6. This finding returned by the learned Single Judge could not be assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is, however, sought to be argued that it was the duty of the school to deduct the contribution towards the CPF scheme from the employee’s salary, as also to deposit its contribution. For the failure of the school management to comply with the conditions of clauses 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution dated 5.2.1980, the petitioner-appellant herein cannot be made to suffer. On further finding about the fraud committed by the petitioner-appellant herein in filling up the form for deposits in the GPF account, which was meant for the employees/staff of the recognised and aided Institution, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was simply a format and there was no clarity nor there was any indication that the said form was meant only for the teachers of recognised and aided Institution. It, therefore, cannot be said that the appellant had committed any fraud by filling up the form for the GPF scheme or by making contribution in the same. 7. It is lastly submitted that in any case, the Government Resolution dated 5.2.1980 was applicable uptil the month of June 1992 when it was discontinued in respect of those Non Grant-in-Aid Schools which have been recognised vide Government Resolution dated 28.9.1992. The petitioner-appellant having been appointed in the year 1981 was covered under the Government Resolution dated 5.2.1980. The submission is that the learned Single Judge has committed illegality in non-suiting the petitioner on the premise that he has committed fraud by opening a GPF account and is not entitled for any indulgence of this Court. The petitioner-appellant having been appointed in the year 1981 was covered under the Government Resolution dated 5.2.1980. The submission is that the learned Single Judge has committed illegality in non-suiting the petitioner on the premise that he has committed fraud by opening a GPF account and is not entitled for any indulgence of this Court. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 18.3.2004 rendered in the case of State of Gujarat and Others vs. Surendrakumar D. Bhatt and Others, Civil Application No. 9499 of 2003 in Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp) No. 1819 of 2003 as well as of the Apex Court decision dated 30.8.2004, rendered in the case of State of Gujarat and Others vs. Surendrakumar D. Bhatt and Others, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 17117 of 2004. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-school management, on the other hand, submits that the applicability of clauses 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution dated 5.2.1980 would depend upon the fulfillment of the conditions contained in clause 4 thereof. The submission is that only those employees, whose services were pensionable at the time of entering into services, were entitled for the benefit of clauses 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution dated 5.2.1980. The submission is thus that from any angle, benefits cannot be provided to the petitioner-appellant. So far as the finding of fraud, it is sought to be pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent-school management that in the year 2008, upon instructions issued by the school management, the petitioner had closed the account, however, the deposits made by the petitioner are still lying with the school management and they are ready to refund the deposits made by the petitioner. 9. Having noted the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, suffice it to note that as per own admission of the writ petitioner, he has never been the member of CPF scheme, which was one of the pre-conditions for applicability of the Government Resolution dated 5.2.1980. The contribution if any made by the petitioner was under the GPF scheme, which was applicable in case of employees-staff of recognised and aided school. The contribution if any made by the petitioner was under the GPF scheme, which was applicable in case of employees-staff of recognised and aided school. The condition of the appointment letter of the petitioner has also been noted by the learned Single Judge which records that it was the appointment of the petitioner on the scale of Rs. 440-750 + DA + HRA. The appointment letter did not prescribe the services of the petitioner to be pensionable. Clauses 1, 2 and 4 of the Government Resolution dated 5.2.1980 prescribe the conditions which are not fulfilled in the instant case. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 10. We, therefore, do not find any good ground to interfere in the decision of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed, accordingly. 11. However, so far as the deposits made by the petitioner towards contribution in the GPF account lying with the school management, we keep it open for the petitioner-appellant to move a proper application for refund of the said amount. In case such an application is filed with the school management, the refund of the deposits made by the petitioner-appellant shall be processed in expeditious manner.