LPA/509/1996 1/2 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 509 of 1996 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9936 of 1995 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================= DEVYANIBEN KUNDANGIRI GOSWAMI - Appellant Versus DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER & 3 - Respondents ================================================= Appearance : MR GAURANG H BHATT for Appellant : MR RA MISHRA for Respondent : 1, RULE SERVED for Respondents : 2 - 4. ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 05/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD) 1. The relevant question which is required to be considered in LPA/509/1996 2/2 JUDGMENT this appeal is whether an option was exercised by the appellant – petitioner for taking fixed medical allowance or actual medical allowance. Learned Single Judge has found that there was no proof on record to establish that any option was exercised by the employee. In absence of option being not exercised, it cannot be considered on behalf of the petitioner. On being asked whether any option has been exercised by the employee, no specific reply has been given by the counsel for the appellant. Appellant has not filed along with the civil application any proof to show that option was exercised and sent. In fact only an application has been made. 2. Even in the civil application it has been stated that she may be permitted to exercise the option now. In that background of facts it can not be said that learned Single Judge was devoid of force in deciding the petition and can not be said to be not based on material on record. In this background, no interference is called for. The appeal is dismissed. [ BHAGWATI PRASAD, J ] [ S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] /vgn