1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 355 OF 2005 Smt. Valimma Late M. Krishnaswami Pillai .. Petitioner Versus Union of India and others .. Respondents Mr. A. P. Vanarase, for the petitioner Mr. J. C. Satpute with Mr. A.D. Kango for respondent Nos.1 to 3 CORAM: V. C. DAGA, & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED: 19th March, 2009 P. C. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 6.3.2003 passed in Original Application No. 267/2000 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai. Petitioner is claiming family pension since the late husband of the petitioner had been employed in Central Vehicle Depot, Dehu Road. She claims that her husband had opted for family pension. 3. On being served with the notice, the respondents appeared and filed counter affidavits, reading as under: “ 2. It is submitted that the said late husband of the 2 petitioner had been a member of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and when the employees were given option to opt for pensionary scheme, he had not exercised the said option. In fact, it is submitted that as per the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, the deceased had been paid double the contribution to the said fund and the same satisfied his claim in law. In fact, it is stated that he was also given additional retrenchment compensation for the termination of his services. 3. Further, it is stated for the information of the Hon'ble Court that ex-gratia payment has also been made to the petitioner. In fact, considering all these aspects, the Central Administrative tribunal had rightly rejected the Original Application No.2 67 o of 2000 by a cogent order.” 4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that husband of the petitioner had exercised the option for the pensionary scheme . She further submits that the said papers are misplaced by the Central Vehicle Depot. In order to test the correctness of the submissions made, we asked the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, as to on what basis the petitioner is making statement that her husband had opted for family pension scheme. On being asked, it is stated that such information was passed on the petitioner by her deceased husband. As against this, the contention of 3 respondents is that no such option was exercised by the husband of the petitioner. In order to find out truth of the statements made by the petitioner, we turned to the affidavit of the petitioner filed in support of the petition, wherein the petitioner has not disclosed any source of information. In these circumstance, it is not possible for us to accept the contention of the petitioner that her Late husband had told her that he had exercised the option for family pension. The stand taken by the respondents will have to be accepted, since the same is based on official record maintained during the regular course of official business, especially when nothing is brought on record to doubt the same. In the circumstances, petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. ( MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (V. C. DAGA, J.) jpc/-