Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 417 (GUJ)

UNION OF INDIA v. RAMESHBHAI NEMABHAI CHAUDHARI

2018-02-06

A.Y.KOGJE, M.R.SHAH

body2018
JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. RULE. Mr.Ketan Dave, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent herein –original applicant. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, and considering the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India and others Versus Chhaganbhai Chauhan, rendered in Special Civil Application No. 13206 of 2017, by which, in the similar set of facts and circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court has quashed and set aside similar order passed by the learned tribunal and has remanded the matter to the learned tribunal, present petition is taken up for final hearing today. 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad dated 8/6/2017 passed in O.A. No.256 of 2017 with M.A. No.235 of 2017, original respondents have preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugned judgment and order the learned tribunal has allowed the said O.A. preferred by the respondent herein and has directed the petitioners herein – department to treat the applicant as having been completed minimum qualifying service of 10 years for the purpose of pensionery benefits and has directed to sanction pension accordingly and pay the arrears. 5. Mr.Kshitij Amin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners herein has heavily relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chhaganbhai Chauhan (supra), by which, on interpretation of Rule 49(3) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972, it is held that only in a case where the applicant is short of pensionery benefits upto three months, the same is condonable and in that case only the concerned applicant can be said to have completed minimum qualifying service for the purpose of pensionery benefits, however, this Court has remanded the matter to the learned tribunal to consider the question as to whether the services rendered by the original applicant as a Gramin Dak Sevak can be considered for the purpose of pensionable service or not. 6. 6. In view of the above, Mr.Ketan Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent herein has requested to pass appropriate order. 7. In view of the above and more particularly considering the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chhaganbhai Chauhan (supra) and for the reasons recorded in the said judgment and order recorded in the case of Chhaganbhai Chauhan (supra), which shall be application with full force to the facts of the case on hand, present petition succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad dated 8/6/2017 passed in O.A. No.256 of 2017 with M.A. No.235 of 2017 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned tribunal to consider the issue / question as to, whether the services rendered by the original applicant as a Gramin Dak Sevak can be considered / counted for the purpose of pensionable service or not. However, it is made clear that we have not expressed anything on merits and the learned tribunal to consider and decide the said issue in accordance with law and on its own merits. It is also made clear and observed that in case the learned tribunal is of the opinion that the services rendered by the original applicant as a Gramin Dak Sevak is required to be considered for the purpose of counting pensionable service of the original applicant and consequently, the original applicant is entitled to pensionery benefits, in that case, the reliefs be confined to last three years’ benefits only from the date of application, as has been done by this Court in the case of Chhaganbhai Chauhan (supra). Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.