1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5571/2007 (Sudhakar Ganesh Guru Vs. The State & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA & SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATED : MARCH 18, 2008. Heard Mr. Lohiya for the petitioner, Mrs. Dangre, Addl. G.P., for respondent nos. 1 to 4, and Mr. Badar for respondent no.5. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to forward the pension papers of the petitioner to the respondent no.4 for considering the eligibility of the petitioner for grant of pension. At the outset, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has never served in the office of the Collector. It is further brought to the notice of the 2 Court by the Additional Government Pleader that the petitioner had served as Tractor Driver under the then Director of Relief and Rehabilitation, Chandrapur during the period from 16/5/1965 to 6/1/1970. The services of the petitioner were terminated from 8/1/1970 by the then Director, Relief and Rehabilitation, Chandrapur. The last employer of the petitioner, as per the decision given by the Labour Court dated 6/3/1998 in BIR Case No. 33/1985, has extended pensionary benefits to the petitioner by taking into account the past services rendered by the petitioner under the Director of Relief and Rehabilitation, Chandrapur. The Provident Fund Commissioner has granted a pension of Rs. 516/- per month to the petitioner under the E.P.F. Scheme. The petitioner was given appointment under the F.D.C.M. with effect from 19/1/1970 and the petitioner served in the said post till his retirement. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that since the petitioner was getting pension from the Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur, considering the past service, the petitioner is not entitled to 3 get the pension/pensionary benefits from the State Government. The above referred facts are mentioned in the reply on affidavit dated 31/1/2008 filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3, and these facts are not controverted by the petitioner by filing counter affidavit. In the absence thereof, there is no reason why these facts cannot be taken into consideration. It is well settled that the petitioner is entitled to receive one pension. However, there is no rule or procedure placed before us in order to demonstrate that the petitioner is entitled to receive two pensions from two different departments. In the absence thereof, it is not possible for us to show any indulgence in the present writ petition and hence, same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE RMP