ORDER : 1. The present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 18492 of 2016, whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant claiming family pension. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Vicky Mehta appearing for the appellant-original petitioner has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact of the option filled by the late husband of the appellant opting for pension. He has submitted that the late husband of the appellant filled the option form on 30.01.1993 and since the pensionary benefit was not conferred to the appellant, she has filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 21640 of 2007, which was disposed of by an order dated 22.08.2007 directing the respondents to take appropriate decision. It appears that thereafter, the District Development Officer, Amreli, rejected the request of pension and it was held that the late husband of the appellant was not entitled for pension as he did not fill any option, as per the Government Resolution dated 29.09.1992. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Vicky Mehta appearing for the appellant, while referring to the communication dated 28.02.2007 written by the Gram Panchayat to the District Development Officer, has submitted that the Gram Panchayat has recommended the case of the appellant for payment of pension and it is categorically recorded therein that the late husband of the appellant had opted for pension, as per the Government Resolution dated 29.09.1992. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Vicky Mehta has further contended that the learned Single Judge has held that the option filled by the late husband of the appellant on 30.01.1993 as unreliable, which could not have been done and the respondents could have been directed to hold appropriate inquiry. Learned advocate Mr. Vicky Mehta has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai vs. State of Gujarat, 2016 (12) SCC 801 in support of his case. 5. Thus, it is submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to confer the benefit of pension to the appellant. 6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. 5. Thus, it is submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to confer the benefit of pension to the appellant. 6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3, by placing reliance on the documents produced along with the affidavit-in-reply, has submitted that as per their record, the option dated 30.01.1993, on which the reliance is placed by the appellant, cannot be relied upon. He has submitted that the appellant continued in the CPF Scheme and after the CPF was adopted by the Panchayat, 10 employees filled in their option forms opting for GPF scheme from CPF scheme. Accordingly, the Panchayat undertook necessary exercise. He has placed reliance on various documents in this regard and has submitted that in all these documents, name of the late husband of the appellant does not figure. 7. Learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw has further submitted that all these employees, who were the colleagues of the late husband of the appellant and were Class-IV employees, after they had opted for GPF scheme, the Treasury Office as well as Panchayat office asked them to fill up the necessary forms, so that their GPF Account can be opened. He has submitted that in these documents also, it is not found that the late husband of the appellant has ever filled up the form. 8. Learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw has further submitted that the late husband of the appellant also filed an application for withdrawal of an amount of Rs.15,000/- from the CPF Account in the year 2001. While referring to such application, he has submitted that signatures on the option form, on which, the reliance is placed, do not even match remotely. Thus, it is held that the original record of the Panchayat reveals that the option, on which reliance is placed, is dubious. Thus, it is urged that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge may not be interfered with. 9. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at length. The entire case of the appellant hinges on the option dated 30.01.1993 at Annexure “B”. Thus, it is urged that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge may not be interfered with. 9. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at length. The entire case of the appellant hinges on the option dated 30.01.1993 at Annexure “B”. It is case of the appellant that her husband had filled up the option form opting for pensionary benefits in the year 1993 as per the Government Resolution issued by the State Government dated 29.09.1992 whereby, the State Government has declared the pension scheme applicable to the Panchayat instead of CPF. 10. The late husband of the appellant was serving as a Peon and since the respondent- Gram Panchayat was at the relevant time having CPF scheme for its employees, CPF Account was opened in the name of late husband on 01.02.1981. Thereafter, the State Government introduced the pension scheme for the employees of the Nagar Panchayat vide Government Resolution dated 29.09.1992 and as per Clause-7 of the said Government Resolution, the employees had to fill in the option within a period of six months or migrating to the pension scheme. It is not in dispute that the late husband of the appellant had also withdrawn an amount of Rs.15,000/- from the CPF Account on 23.01.2001. He passed away on 10.09.2001 and thereafter, the amount, which was lying in the CPF Account, was also paid to the appellant. Thus, an amount of Rs.20,745/- which was lying in the CPF Account, was paid to the appellant on 21.12.2001. After a period of 5 years, the appellant addressed a letter dated 04.08.2006 claiming family pension. Ultimately, since the same was not paid and after the decision of this Court on 22.08.2007 passed in Special Civil Application No. 21640 of 2007 wherein, this Court directed the respondents to pass the reasoned order, respondent No. 2 through a reasoned order dated 22.01.2008 did not accede to the request of the appellant to pay the family pension. 11. On perusal of the documents, which are produced on record along with the affidavit-in-reply by the Panchayat, we find that after the aforesaid scheme was introduced, 10 employees opted for the GPF scheme and their names reflected in the communication dated 16.10.1993 written by the Panchayat to the District Account Officer. The name of late husband of the appellant does not figure. The name of late husband of the appellant does not figure. Similarly another document dated 19.11.1993 refers to the opening of the Accounts. On 13.09.1993, the Panchayat requested the Account Officer that 10 employees referred therein, have opted for GPF and hence, their GPF Accounts are required to be opened. Similar request is made on 03.11.1993. All these documents do not refer the name of late husband of the appellant. These employees were colleagues of the late husband of the appellant. Ultimately after the correspondence was done, a necessary Form was required to be filled in by the employees for opening of the GPF Account. All these 10 employees filled up the Forms as required, which includes the signatures of the employees, the stamp of the Secretary of the Panchayat, Accounts Officer, Talati-cum-Mantri of the Panchayat. No such Form has been filled up by the late husband of the appellant. 12. We have also perused the necessary application filed by the late husband of the appellant for withdrawal of Rs.15,000/- from his CPF Account. There are various documents, which are signed by him, from Page Nos. 76 to 81 however, perusal of the signatures attested on such documents, do not even remotely match with the signature of the late husband of the appellant in the option form dated 30.01.1993. Learned Single Judge has also held that the option, which was produced at Annexure “B” is not a reliable document. Learned Single Judge in this regard has observed as under: “[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. 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 Panchayat. 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. We are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. The option at Annexure “B” dated 30.01.1993 does not appear to be reliable. It does not form part of the original record. It is also not in dispute that further correspondences between the Panchayat and State authorities i.e. Account Officers, do not in any manner reflect the name of the late husband of the appellant. It is hard to believe that the name of the late husband of the appellant would have been deliberately left out by the Panchayat from the list of 10 employees, who were Class-IV employees and colleagues of the late husband of the appellant. No allegation of mala fide intention has been leveled against the Panchayat by the appellant. Thus, the entire communications relating to opening of the GPF Accounts only pertains to 10 employees hence, it is very hard to believe that the late husband of the appellant was unaware about the proceedings undertaken by the Panchayat with his colleagues for opening GPF accounts. After necessary efforts were made by the Panchayat and the necessary forms were filled in and signed by his colleagues the GPF Account was opened. 14. The judgment, on which, reliance is placed by the learned advocate Mr. Vicky Mehta for the appellant in the case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai (supra) cannot come to his rescue as the same does not even remotely apply to the facts of the present case. 15. 14. The judgment, on which, reliance is placed by the learned advocate Mr. Vicky Mehta for the appellant in the case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai (supra) cannot come to his rescue as the same does not even remotely apply to the facts of the present case. 15. On the overall analysis of facts, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present appeal fails and the same is rejected.