Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 10 (GUJ)

Ganeshbhai Ambalal Patel v. State of Gujarat

2008-01-10

JAYANT PATEL

body2008
Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—Rule. Mr. Pandya, learned AGP for the respondent State, waives service of notice of Rule. With, the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard today. 2. The only question arises for consideration is whether the Government Corrigendum dated 11.09.1979 can be given effect retrospectively or prospectively. 3. The short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioner was sent for training for Farm Management vide order dated 14.11.1972 and such training was from 20.11.1972 and was for a period of six months. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Agriculture Assistant vide order dated 20.02.1973. 4. At the time when the petitioner was sent for training, the Government Resolution dated 24.01.1973 was prevailing and as per the said resolution of the State Government, the training of Farm Management was to be treated as in-service training, instead of pre-service training, but as the period was six months, it was reduced to three months for the purpose of in-service training. A copy of the said resolution is produced at Annexure “C”. It appears that thereafter the petitioner continued in service and the petitioner retired on the post of Assistant Director, Agriculture, on reaching the age of superannuation. The pension papers were submitted and thereafter, the pension was also sanctioned but it appears that the period of pre-service training, which was undertaken by the petitioner was not considered, for the length of service of the petitioner for the fixation of the pension. The petitioner earlier approached this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No. 3531 of 2007 and this Court (Coram: H.K. Rathod, J.) relegated the petitioner to make representation vide order dated 07.02.2007. The petitioner thereafter did make representation on 12.02.2007 and the said representation has been rejected vide order dated 21.04.2007 and it is under these circumstances, the present petition before this Court. 5.Heard Mr. Prajapati, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pandya, learned AGP for the State Authorities. 6. It appears that the only contention raised on behalf of the State Government is that subsequently vide Corrigendum dated 11.10.1979 the State Government has substituted the words “as pre-service training, by the words in service training” and, therefore, it is the contention of the respondent that the period of pre-service training is not considered for the purpose of fixation of pension of the petitioner. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondent State Government that when the pension of the petitioner was fixed, the Corrigendum was already there from 11.10.1979 and, therefore, if it is considered, it cannot be said that any retrospective effect is given. 7. It is now well settled that the policy of the Government is to be considered for the prospective period. It is clear from the record that the period during which the petitioner was sent for training, was during the period 1972-73 and at the relevant point of time, the position governing the period of pre-service training was different. It is only when the corrigendum was issued on 11.10.1979 the words of “pre-service training” is deleted and consequently the change. Such corrigendum would apply with prospective effect. Therefore, if any employee has undergone the training during the period 1972-73, the rights may accrue as per the position prevailing then. The interpretation of the corrigendum to apply retrospectively for the period 1972-73 can be said as against the well settled principles of interpretation of statutes and the policy. 8. The contention that the petitioner came to be retired recently or, in any case, after the corrigendum was issued cannot be maintain for the simple reason that for consideration of length of service, the law prevailing then is to be considered and not at the time when the person reaches the age of superannuation. Hence, the said contention cannot be accepted. 9. Therefore, the corrigendum cannot be made effective with retrospective effect and can be given effect prospectively. 10. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the petitioner would, be entitled to the benefits of pre-service training pursuant to the resolution of the State Government dated 24.01.1973 and accordingly the respondents are further directed to consider the length of the service of the petitioner and refix the pension as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. 11.The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.