Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1098 (GUJ)

Arunchandra Chhaganlal Shah v. State of Gujarat

2018-09-18

MOHINDER PAL

body2018
JUDGMENT : MOHINDER PAL, J. 1. All these matters are taken up together having common question of law and facts. 2. In these petitions under Art. 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have challenged the Resolution dated 28-11-2002 passed by the State Government vide which it has been decided to deprive them of the benefits available to the regularly recruited employees of the State Government. 3. Government of India established Small Farmers Development Agency, Drought Area Programme Agency and Small Farmers and Agricultural Labourers Agency during the 4th and 5th year plan. These Agencies were established under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The main object of these Societies was to assist weaker sections in rural Area through economically viable co-operatives by providing requisite credit and other support services. The Societies were funded through grants from Government of India. The Governing Bodies were given power to appoint persons by taking on “deputation” from the Government or the District Panchayat, Bulsar or other bodies, the staff required by the Society as and when necessary and to deal with all the establishment matters relating to them. As per these powers, some of the Agencies recruited staff directly, and hence, such staff recruited were not Government staff, but the staff of the concerned Society, and therefore, they were not entitled to get the benefits likewise the Government employees. 4. These Societies were merged into District Rural Development Agencies during the year 1981 by the instructions of Central Government. All the assets and liabilities were also transferred to the new Agency, (in short, D.R.D.As.) and as such, these directly recruited staff petitioners were also transferred to the D.R.D.As. As these employees were not given benefits, which were available to the State Government employees, the petitioners have preferred these petitions which are pending for disposals. 5. Respondents have contested this petition by filing reply. Respondent No. 1, Joint Secretary, Panchayat, Rural Housing and Development Department, Gandhinagar in its reply has justified the segregation of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners were recruited staff of the concerned Societies, and therefore, they were not entitled to get the benefits like the Government employees. Some of the instructions given by the Government of India prior to permission of D.R.D.A. did not contain any instructions as to directly recruited staff to be considered as Government servants. Some of the instructions given by the Government of India prior to permission of D.R.D.A. did not contain any instructions as to directly recruited staff to be considered as Government servants. The instructions were to the effect that the Central Government was liable to pay only regarding the pay-scale and T.A. and D.A. etc. and also on the basis of pattern adopted by the State Government for such staff on similar scale. The employees cannot be termed as State Government employees. The Government of India has very clearly mentioned that these appointments were to be directly appointed as temporary staff by the Agencies. The pay and allowances shall be as prescribed by the Agencies which should roughly correspond to the employees of the State Government. There was no mention of other terms like medical allowance, leave encashment, pension and provident fund, etc. which could be paid to the petitioners as these petitioners cannot be equated with the Staff appointed on deputation from the State Government. 6. Government of India was very clear on these two different categories of staff and did not have any permanent policy for these directly recruited staff, because it was clearly mentioned that they are temporary, and therefore, it was clear that recruitment of the staff and employees of D.R.D.As. were not to be equated with regular employees of the State Government. Another distinction pointed out by the respondent No. 1 in its reply is that when the question arose, of opening of account of G.P.F. (General Provident Fund) for the staff of these Agencies, it was decided that those who are on deputation from the State Government will be eligible for G.P.F. as per prevalent rules, whereas the directly recruited staff of D.R.D.A. will be governed by the scheme known as C.P.F. (Contributory Provident Fund) Rules, 1962. This distinction clearly shows that staff which Government of India recruited directly cannot be equated with the employees of the State Government who are governed by G.P.F. Rules, which were not applicable to the directly recruited staff of Agencies. 7. In the further affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, it is pleaded that D.R.D.A. was established with specific purpose of managing anti-poverty programs. The D.R.D.A. was distinct from all other agencies including the Zilla Parishad or Jilla Panchayat. 7. In the further affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, it is pleaded that D.R.D.A. was established with specific purpose of managing anti-poverty programs. The D.R.D.A. was distinct from all other agencies including the Zilla Parishad or Jilla Panchayat. The preamble of the guidelines categorically stated that D.R.D.A. has traditionally been the principal organ at District level to oversee the implementation of different anti-poverty programs. So far as the crucial aspect regarding the staff is concerned, the State Rural Development Department was instructed to immediately draw up a plan for absorption of the staff into the line departments. In view of this, after discussion with the Labour Department, Panchayat Department, General Administration Department and Finance Department, a policy decision was taken by way of the G.R. dated 28-11-2002 wherein, the State had taken a categorical and concrete stand as a policy decision that the staff cannot be absorbed in the line Departments because of their back-door entry and the methodology adopted in making appointments being not in consonance with the Recruitment Rules. As there are procedural irregularities in these appointments, they cannot be given benefits which were available to the State Government employees at the time of retirement. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has referred the policy of the Central Government for Small/Marginal Farmers and Agricultural Labourers. While referring to this policy, it has been submitted that through various decisions including letter dated 15-5-1970, it was decided that the pay-scale of the staff employed under this scheme, will have to correspond to the existing pay-scale in the States which may vary from State to State. The staff will be in the form of Lower Divisional Clerk-cum-Typist and Peon (usual Class-IV scale of pay in the State). These employees were further entitled to the benefits like Medical Facilities, Leave Salary, Pension, Provident Fund, etc. They were to be governed by the State Rules which were applicable to the similar staff of the State Government. The service conditions of the staff under these agencies will be screened by the State Governments/Union Territory Administration, and it was decided that the Government of India was required to be consulted only if there was major departures from the principle. The service conditions of the staff under these agencies will be screened by the State Governments/Union Territory Administration, and it was decided that the Government of India was required to be consulted only if there was major departures from the principle. He has further referred to the impugned notification of the State Government dated 28-11-2002 and has submitted that as per this Circular, employees recruited under this Scheme in Class-Ill and Class-IV categories was under active consideration of the State Government to regularize their services. It has been argued that despite such decisions having been taken, the petitioners have been given stepmotherly treatment by stating that C.P.F. Rules shall be applicable at the time of superannuation of these employees and Pensions Rules of the State Government was not to be made applicable. Learned Counsel has also referred to the letter from the Finance Department wherein, Finance Department to the Accounts Officer assuring that the employees of these agencies are being considered as Government employees, and hence, verification of these employees will be done as decided in the Resolution issued by Finance Department dated 21-7-1987. He has also referred to letter issued by the Ministry of Rural Development, New Delhi, dated 6th March, 2001, stating therein that complaints were received regarding the poor service conditions of the D.R.D.A. staff and State Government was directed to take remedial steps. While referring to the reply of the State Government, it has been argued that the benefits of 9 years of service and 6th Pay Commission were also released to the petitioners while treating other employees at par with the employees of the State Government. Once, such benefits were released, the employees cannot be discriminated by treating them differently at the time of retirement by saying that their initial appointments was back door entry. Learned Counsel has also referred to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of A.N. Sachdeva (Dead) By L.Rs. v. Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, reported in 2015 Law Suit (SC) 735, and in the case of Sri Har Singh Gusain v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Rural Development, reported in 2013 (1) SLR 123. 9. Learned Counsel has also referred to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of A.N. Sachdeva (Dead) By L.Rs. v. Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, reported in 2015 Law Suit (SC) 735, and in the case of Sri Har Singh Gusain v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Rural Development, reported in 2013 (1) SLR 123. 9. On the other hand, learned A.G.P. and learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respondents have controverted these arguments while referring to the impugned notification and contended that a sympathetic approach has been adopted by the State Government to release various benefits to the petitioners. The initial appointments of the petitioners was through a back-door entry and right from beginning, the set-up of the petitioners was different which cannot be equated with regular employees of the State of Gujarat. There was a clear distinction between the contributions made by the petitioners and that of the State Government employees as the petitioners were required to be governed by C.P.F. Scheme while the regularly recruited Government employees were entitled to G.P.F. Scheme and pensionary benefits, etc. Learned Counsels have further argued that at the time of retirement of the petitioners, they accepted the benefits available under C.P.F. Scheme and once such benefits have been accepted, they cannot claim for the pensionary benefits which are available to the State Government employees. 10. This Court has considered the submissions made by both the sides. 11. So far as the crucial aspect regarding the staff is concerned the State Rural Development Department was instructed to immediately draw up a plan for absorption of the staff into the line departments. In this view of the aspect, the State Government took up the steps and took a policy decision by way of Government Resolution dated 28-11-2002 wherein, the State had taken up a stand that the petitioners cannot be absorbed in the line departments because of their initial appointments. 12. It could be seen that all these petitioners have been recruited somewhere in between 1972 to 1980. They have worked for all these years till the date of superannuation. To say that these employees will not be treated at par with the Government employees for the reasons that their initial appointments was back-door entry, is nothing but discrimination at the ends of the State Government. They have worked for all these years till the date of superannuation. To say that these employees will not be treated at par with the Government employees for the reasons that their initial appointments was back-door entry, is nothing but discrimination at the ends of the State Government. This is particularly so, when the petitioners are performing the same duties which are being performed by the employees of the State Government. Initially, at the time of floating of the Scheme by the Government of India, policy decision was taken that the service conditions of these employees will be at par with that of the State Government employees. Various provisions in this Scheme leaves no doubt that the pay-scale, T.A. and D.A. of the staff will correspond to existing pay-scale and conditions of service at par with the State Government employees. They will be entitled to the same facilities of salary, pension, provident fund, leave encashment etc. The service conditions of these employees was to be controlled by the officials of the State Government. Throughout their services, these employees have worked under the directions and guidelines of the State Government. The benefits of 9/18 years of service has been released to these employees. They are further entitled to benefits of 6th Pay Commission. Once all these benefits have been granted to the petitioners and they have been designated as regular employees of the State Government, they cannot be denied retiral benefits on the ground that their initial appointments was back-door entry. 13. Learned Counsel for the respondents has argued on the point that these petitioners at the time of superannuation have accepted the C.P.F. Scheme. This Court is of the considered opinion that even if the petitioners have accepted the benefits of C.P.F. Scheme, such acceptance was under compulsion and not as free-will of the employees. Furthermore, accepting C.P.F. Scheme during the pendency of the petition does not attract the provisions of res-judicata as this acceptance is under compulsion and against their wishes. 14. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has referred to the aforementioned decision of Apex Court in case of A.N. Sachdeva (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, 2015 Law Suit (SC) 735. While deciding the case of the employees who have been directly recruited and others who have been absorbed, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “27. Considering the principles enunciated under Arts. v. Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, 2015 Law Suit (SC) 735. While deciding the case of the employees who have been directly recruited and others who have been absorbed, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “27. Considering the principles enunciated under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and that the benefit is not an ex gratia payment, but a payment in recognition of past service, in our opinion, discrimination could not have been made between those employees who have been absorbed/allocated are entitled to count their services as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and not those who have been appointed directly. Fact remains that all these employees have served in Punjab University/Kurukshetra University/M.D. University without any break. M.D. University, prior to its establishment, was the regional centre of Kurukshetra University. Expectation had arisen to compute the period of service rendered in Punjab University/Kurukshetra University which cannot be unreasonably deprived of. Merely because a person has been appointed and others have been absorbed/allocated makes no difference as to the service rendered. Even otherwise, it is a case of upward revision of benefit and the classification which is sought to be created by the aforesaid method of not extending benefit to persons appointed directly and by fixing cut-off date cannot be said to be intelligible one; same is discriminatory, and thus, the appellants would be entitled for the benefit from the date decision has been taken on 24-12-2001 to compute the previous service rendered in Punjab University/Kurukshetra University as qualifying service. In other words, they would be entitled for the benefit prospectively from the date of issuance of memorandum dated 24-12-2001. The employees have expressed their willingness to deposit/adjustment of the employer’s contribution of C.P.F. as required in the memorandum dated 24-12-2001.” 15. The main reasoning given by the respondents while denying the retiral benefits to the petitioners are centered around the point that the petitioners are recruited differently through autonomous bodies which is different than that of the State Government. Hon’ble Apex Court in Full Bench in the case of Sri Har Singh Gusain v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Rural Development, 2013 (1) SLR 123, while deciding case of employees recruited under D.R.D.A. scheme has held as under: “10. Hon’ble Apex Court in Full Bench in the case of Sri Har Singh Gusain v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Rural Development, 2013 (1) SLR 123, while deciding case of employees recruited under D.R.D.A. scheme has held as under: “10. The concept of D.R.D.A. was visualized by the Government of India as a specialized and professional agency capable of maintaining the Anti-Poverty Programmes of Ministry of Rural Development, and effectively relate these to the overall effort of poverty eradication in the District. In the other words, a D.R.D.A. is required to watch over, and ensure effective utilization of the funds intended for Anti-Poverty Programmes. The D.R.D.As. are expected to co-ordinate with the Line Department, Panchayati Raj Institutions, N.G.Os. as well as Technical Institutions with a view to gather the support, and resources required for poverty eradication. Role and functions of D.R.D.As. as given in ‘REGULATIONS’ framed by the Ministry of Rural Development of Government of India provides that D.R.D.As. would maintain their separate identity, but will function under chairmanship of the Chairman of the Zila Parishad. And, in absence of Zila Parishad the D.R.D.A. would function under the District Magistrate/Dy. Commissioner as the case may be. 11. It is relevant to mention here that expression ‘Rural Development’ nowhere finds place in either of the three lists of Seventh Schedule of Constitution of India, but Schemes meant for ‘Rural Development’ not only cover many of the subjects of State list like Item Nos. 14, 15, 17 and 21, but also the Items Nos. 20, 29, 38 of concurrent list. As such, it can be said that executive powers of the State extends under proviso to Art. 162 of Constitution of India subject to as limited by clause (2) of Art. 246 read with proviso to Art. 73 of Constitution of India. 12. On the point of administration of D.R.D.As., the ‘REGULATIONS’ framed by Government of India provide that D.R.D.A. shall be a registered society registered under Society Registration Act or distinct cell in the Zila Parishad having separate identity. The ‘REGULATIONS’ further provide that Chairman of Zila Parishad shall be a Chairman of Governing Body of D.R.D.A. However, executive and financial functions would lie with Chief Executive Officer of Zila Parishad/the District Collector who shall be designated as Chief Executive Officer. It further provides that whenever Zila Parishads are not in existence or are not functional, the D.R.D.As. The ‘REGULATIONS’ further provide that Chairman of Zila Parishad shall be a Chairman of Governing Body of D.R.D.A. However, executive and financial functions would lie with Chief Executive Officer of Zila Parishad/the District Collector who shall be designated as Chief Executive Officer. It further provides that whenever Zila Parishads are not in existence or are not functional, the D.R.D.As. would function under Collector/District Magistrate/Dy. Commissioner of the District as the case may be. In the composition of the Governing Body apart from the Chairman of Zila Parishad, the Members of Parliament, Members of Legislative Assembly, District Magistrate, Heads of Co-operative Banks, District Lead Banks, N.A.B.A.R.D. Representatives, Representatives of N.G.Os. etc., have their right of representation. Para 5.5 of the Chapter V of ‘REGULATIONS’ provides that all executive and financial powers of D.R.D.A. shall be exercised by the Executive Committee as per a Scheme of delegation of financial and executive powers to be determined by each State, and this Committee (through its Chief Executive Officer) will be fully accountable in all matters of D.R.D.A. to the Governing Body as well as to the Government.” 16. State has tried to make distinction of the petitioners from the other employees while referring to their initial appointments. In one of the litigations contested by the State of Gujarat in the case of State of Gujarat v. Chandubhai Chhotabhai Patel, reported in 2018 (0) AIJEL-HC 239046, it was held that employees working with the Panchayats were deprived of pensionary benefits on the ground that these employees were a part of non-Government Gram Panchayat and their appointments was not in accordance with the provisions of Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1961 and their appointments were illegal. While holding in favour of these employees, it was held that denying pensionary benefits of these employees amount to setting at naught an established and a settled principle of law as decided in the case of State of Gujarat v. Ramanlal Keshavlal Soni, reported in AIR 1984 SC 161 : [ 1983 (1) GLR 708 (SC)]. The employees who have served the Gram Panchayat are held entitled to pensionary benefits like Pension, Gratuity, and other benefits available to any other employee of the State who so retires. Otherwise also, C.P.F. Scheme has been discontinued by the Government after the year 2004. 17. In view of the afore-going discussion, these petitions are allowed. The employees who have served the Gram Panchayat are held entitled to pensionary benefits like Pension, Gratuity, and other benefits available to any other employee of the State who so retires. Otherwise also, C.P.F. Scheme has been discontinued by the Government after the year 2004. 17. In view of the afore-going discussion, these petitions are allowed. Petitioners will be treated as employees of the State Government and shall be entitled to pensionary benefits and retiral benefits which are available to the employees of the State of Gujarat. Some of the petitioners have already withdrawn employees contributions’ of C.P.F. It is made clear that in case where the amount payable by the respondents towards C.P.F. is less than the amount payable to the petitioners as pension, it would be adjusted by the respondents without insisting for its refund or the amount payable to the petitioners. The aforementioned exercise will be completed within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 18. It is also made clear that petitioners shall not be entitled to any interest on the adjusted amount to which they will be held entitled pursuant to the aforementioned decision passed by this Court. Rule is made absolute.