Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 233 (GUJ)

Natubhai Ambalal Parmar v. State Of Gujarat

2024-02-01

HEMANT M.PRACHCHHAK

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. By way of present petition under Articles 14, 16, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the inaction on the part of the respondent authority for not considering the service length of the petitioner from the date of his inception i.e. from 15.12.1965 for pension and prayed for below mentioned relief/s:- "8(a) Your lordships may be please to admit this petition. (b) Your lordship may be please to issue an appropriate writ, direction and order directing the concerned respondents to pay the full pension (Revised Notional Basic Pension) as per with 18% interest from the date on which the petitioner has become entitled to receive the same. (c) Your Lordship may be pleased to direct the respondents to revise the pension on the line of the pensioners given pension on account of 6th Pay Commission and to pay all the consequential benefits regularly pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition. (d) Your lordship may be pleased to direct respondent no. 1 to 3 to consider the case. (e) For such other and further reliefs as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case." 2. The facts giving rise to present petition are that the petitioner was employee of the department of agriculture on deputation. The petitioner has been absorbed with Gujarat State Land Development Corporation Ltd. The petitioner is qualified and eligible for pension, as he had rendered service from 15.12.65 to 22.7.90 and completed 25 years as per required under the pension rules, 1950. 2.1 The petitioner is entitled pension by virtue of G.R. dated 31.7.87,wherein provided pension gratuity is 50% of the last salary. The petitioner has been regularized under the pay scale Rs. 1400-40-1600-50-2300 ?.? 60-2600, wherein as per G.R. Dated 21.11.09 the Darkhast has been made. The office of Assistant Director, Agriculture, Mehsana i.e. the office of the petitioner had executed (Darkhast) dated 8.10.92. However, respondent No.3 has calculated wrong method, style and manner against the well settled statutes, circulars and GCCS (Pension) Rules and not considered the pension of the petitioner's from the date of his inception in the service. 3. I have heard Mr. Yogesh Kanade, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Aditya Jadeja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent State of Gujarat. 4. 3. I have heard Mr. Yogesh Kanade, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Aditya Jadeja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent State of Gujarat. 4. In present case, the petitioner's pension is required to be considered from the date of his inception in government service i.e. 15.12.1965. 5. The respondent authority has rejected the case of the petitioner, mainly on the ground that earlier service rendered by the petitioner in government department is not required to be considered. Therefore, while calculating the span of the service of the petitioner for pension, the respondent corporation has not included the period of earlier service rendered by the petitioner in government department. 6. In fact the petitioner was absorbed by the respondent corporation because of the Government Policy and therefore, the total length of service of the petitioner is required to be considered, including earlier service rendered by the petitioner, for pension. 7. Hence, it is desirable that the petitioner may make detailed representation to the respondent for considering his total length of service from 15.12.1965 onward and not from the date of his absorption in the corporation and his total length of service is required to be considered. 8. In view of that the respondent may consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically, considering the total length of service from the date of inception in the government from 15.12.1965 and not from the date of his absorption. 9. In view of the above, the petitioner is permitted to make appropriate representation within period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and the same shall be decided by the respondent, after considering total length of service and after considering the implication of the Government Resolution which is referred to and relied upon by the respondent, more particularly Government Resolution dated 31.7.1987 more particularly clause Nos. 4.2 and 4.3, within period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. In case of any difficulty, it is open for the petitioner to challenge the decision by filing fresh petition, if it is not considered by the respondent. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is hereby partly allowed. Accordingly present petition stands disposed of. Direct service is permitted.