http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SHRI D.P. PATIL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      By order dated August 20,1996, we allowed the appeal of the respondent Union of India and set aside the order of the Tribunal granting  the benefit  of pension to the applicant. The applicant  has filed  the present applications to recall the order.  It is stated therein that since he has not well, could not  appear on 13.8.1996 when the appeal was initially listed and  intimation to  that effect was given by him. The matter was  thereafter listed on 20.8.1996 but he was not be present on  that date  and the  matter was  disposed  of  ex parte. When  the petitioner choses to appear in person , the Court is  not expected  to give an intimation to the parties of the  date of adjournment. Once intimation is given, it is the duty  of the  party to make note of the subsequent dates and make  himself available  and appear  when  the  case  is called out.  However, we  took care  to satisfy ourselves of the  grievance   of  the   applicant  by  calling  upon  the respondents to explain us the position.      The  controversy   is  no   longer  res   integra.  The entitlement to  the benefit of the pension was considered by this Court  in Krishna  Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors. [AIR 1990 SC  1782-JT 1990  (3) SC 173]. Following that judgment, this Court  had set  aside the  order of the Tribunal. It is seen that  the Claim  of the  petitioner is  that he did not have knowledge  of the extension of the last date for giving the option.  It is  his case  that he  retired  in  November 30,1975 and  he did  not have any opportunity of knowing the extended date.  That is  falsified by  the record.  For  the first time,  it was  extended upto  January 1,1973.  It  was further extended  upto July  23,1974; thereafter,  upto June 25,1975, June,  30, 1976, January 3,1978 and the last of the extensions was  till  December  31,1978.  While  he  was  in service, he  had the  opportunity to  register the option on three occasions,  namely, on  January 1,1973,  July 23, 1974 and June  25,1975. He  did not  exercise the  option at that time. The  option was  as regards  principle of gratuity. He thought that   would  be a  better principle advantageous to him. He  withdrew the  retinal  benefits.  Later,  when  the pension scheme was sought to be given to several persons, he came forward  at a  belated stage  saying that he was not in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

know of  extension till 1991. When others were given benefit by the   Tribunal, he came  to file the petition. In view of the aforesaid  facts, it  is hard  to believe that he had no notice  of   exercising  the   option  for   the  pensionary benefits. Under  these circumstances,  we do  not  find  any illegality in  the order  passed by this Court for recalling the order.      The   interlocutory    application   is,    accordingly dismissed. No cost.