Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 336 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Gangarambhai Shivabhai Patel

2025-03-27

A.S.SUPEHIA, NISHA M.THAKORE

body2025
JUDGMENT : (A.S. SUPEHIA, J.) 1. With consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matters are taken up for final hearing today and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Since similar set of facts are involved and the issue is also analogous in these group of appeals, Letters Patent Appeal No.504 of 2025 is taken up as a lead matter. 3. ADMIT . Learned advocate Mr.D.M. Devnani, appears and waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respective respondent - employees. BRIEF FACTS : 4. The present Letters Patent Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, are directed against the order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No.10701 of 2023, wherein and whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent - employees by issuing the following directions: - “8. Under such circumstances, while this Court deems it appropriate to interfere with the decision of the respondents, this Court also deems it appropriate to impose exemplary cost on the State Government for the decision, which is apparently done without any authority of law whatsoever. Under such circumstances, in view of the discussion hereinabove, the following directions are passed:- (i) The decision of the respondents to not consider the period of service rendered by the petitioners before 01.04.1982 for the purpose of computing pension, is hereby declared as illegal and de hors the direction passed by the learned Coordinate Bench in Special Civil Application No.3250/2009 and allied matters dated 29.06.2017. (ii) The respondents are directed to ensure that the decision of the learned Coordinate Bench is complied with strictly i.e. to state that the petitioners would be treated to be entitled to all the benefits as available under Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 after counting their entire length of service. (iii) The respondents to complete the exercise as above within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order and whereas, the arrears shall be paid to the petitioners as per the direction of the learned Coordinate Bench at paragraph no.33 referred to hereinabove. (iv) The State shall pay cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to the petitioners herein jointly for having taken the decision as above without any authority of law whatsoever. (iv) The State shall pay cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to the petitioners herein jointly for having taken the decision as above without any authority of law whatsoever. The said amount shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.” 5. There is a long-drawn history of the litigation prior to passing of the impugned order, which emanates from the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 issued by the Education Department, State of Gujarat, introducing the Pension Scheme for the teaching staff in the non-Government afÏliated and aided Colleges and the Universities. The respondent-employees are the employees of such institutions. 6. The earlier round of litigation between the respective parties was confined to the interpretation of Clauses 3 and 4 of the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984, wherein the employees, such as the respondents, who were governed by the CPF scheme and were not allowed to opt for the pension (GPF Scheme) as per the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984, ultimately after long-drawn litigation, the respondent - employees succeeded and the State Government extended the benefit of pension to the respondent–employees as per the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 and their pension payment orders were accordingly prepared and the pension was fixed. 7. It is the case of the employees that when the pension payment orders were passed, it was noticed by them that the earlier services prior to 1982 i.e. cut-off date, which is stipulated in Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 has been ignored. 8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the respondent– employees filed the captioned writ petitions praying for counting the entire service from the date of their appointment for counting for the purpose of pension. The learned Single Judge, by placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench dated 02.07.2015 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.981 of 2015, has allowed the writ petition and has directed the appellant-State to compute and fix the pension of the employees and accordingly, revise and pay the arrears to them. In nutshell, the entire services right from the inception / appointment of the employees in the respective institutions is ordered to be counted for the purpose of fixation of pension and payment of arrears accordingly. The same has given rise to the captioned Letters Patent Appeals. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-STATE : 9. In nutshell, the entire services right from the inception / appointment of the employees in the respective institutions is ordered to be counted for the purpose of fixation of pension and payment of arrears accordingly. The same has given rise to the captioned Letters Patent Appeals. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-STATE : 9. Learned Government Pleader Mr.Virk, at the outset, has pointed out that in case, the submission of the respondent- employees is accepted then on the first count, they are not entitled to the benefit of pension as in the earlier round of litigation, they have projected themselves as a fresh appointee appointed in or after 1982 and after succeeding in the earlier round of litigation, now a volte face has been taken that earlier services are required to be considered for the purpose of fixation and computation of pension. While inviting attention of this Court to the provisions of Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984, more particularly the cut-off date as prescribed in paragraph No.4, it is submitted that the said GPF Scheme was only made applicable to the member of the staff recruited on or after 01.04.1982 and staff, which has been recruited prior to the cut-off date, and they were required to tender their option as to whether they would like to continue in the GPF Scheme or newly introduced CPF Scheme. It is submitted that in the earlier round of litigation, the employees have specifically contended that they were appointed in the year 1982, and hence, they would be automatically governed by the clauses of Scheme and accordingly, they are required to be conferred the benefits of pension. It is submitted that after the pension payment orders are made by computing their length of service from the year 1982, the writ petition has been filed for claiming benefits of fixation of pension of earlier years of services, which is impermissible. 10. While referring to the findings of the learned Single Judge in juxtaposition to the judgment and order dated 02.07.2015 passed by the Coordinate Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.981 of 2015, more particularly in paragraph Nos.6.2 and 7. It is contended by learned Government Pleader that the previous service of such employees can only be considered in computing length of qualifying service and not for computation of pension or fixation of amount of pension. It is contended by learned Government Pleader that the previous service of such employees can only be considered in computing length of qualifying service and not for computation of pension or fixation of amount of pension. Whereas the learned Single Judge, while considering the judgment of the Division Bench, has held to the contrary. Learned Government Pleader Mr.Virk has further submitted that the issue is finally laid quietus by the Supreme Court vide order dated 17.12.2021 and hence, it is submitted that thus when the Supreme Court has confirmed the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 02.07.2015 in Letters Patent Appeal No.981 of 2015, the learned Single Judge ought not to have issued the impugned directions. 11. It is contended that in case, the service of the employee is counted from 1965 and he is subsequently appointed as contended by the respondent-employees after the promulgation of the Scheme, his earlier services cannot be counted for actual payment of benefits of pension. 12. He has further pointed out the earlier judgments, which emanated from the litigation between the employees and the State and has submitted that the respondent-employees never contended that their past services are also required to be considered for the computation of pension. Thus, it is urged that once the respondent-employees have projected them, as a fresh appointee in the earlier round of litigation, it is not open for them to claim pension of earlier services as that cannot be the intention of Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984. Thus, it is urged that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the directions may be quashed and set aside. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT-EMPLOYEES : 13. In response to the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned Government Pleader Mr.Virk, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta, assisted by the learned advocate Mr.Devnani has submitted that the writ petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge after precise consideration of earlier round of litigation and taking cognizance of the approach of the Appellant authority, the learned Single Judge has been pleased to impose exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is submitted that this direction issued by the learned Single Judge may not be interfered with as the same is precisely passed. 14. It is submitted that this direction issued by the learned Single Judge may not be interfered with as the same is precisely passed. 14. Learned advocate Mr.Devnani, on instructions of the respondent-employees, who are present before this Court, has asserted that in fact in the year 1982, none of the respondent- employees were appointed as afresh, but they were promoted to their respective posts. It is submitted that the entire length of service from the date of initial appointments of the respondents including the service governed under the CPF Scheme is required to be computed and accordingly their pension is required to be fixed on pro rata basis. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehta, has also referred to the provisions of Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984, more particularly paragraph No.6 which mentions about the provisions of Chapter-XI of the B.C.S.R. Rules, Vol.-I, which will apply to the case of the employees. Thus, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehta, has submitted that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge may not be interfered with since the same are premised on the judgment and order dated 02.07.2015 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.981 of 2015 (State of Gujarat vs. Bhupendra Vallabhdas Chudasma) (2015 JX (Guj) 1165), which has become final. OPINION AND CONCLUSION : 15. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and have also perused the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 16. The prior and the present litigation between the respective parties stems out of Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984, by which the State Government, Education Department had introduced a Pension Scheme for the teaching staff of the non-government afÏliated Colleges and the Universities. It appears that the employees like the present respondents, who were governed by the CPF Scheme were not allowed the benefits of pension (GPF) scheme, hence various writ petitions were filed before this Court. After a long drawn litigation, which ended before the Supreme Court, the benefit of pension emanating from the said Scheme has been implemented in the case of the respondent-employees. The respondents are disbursed the amount of GPF w.e.f 01.06.1982. 17. The appellant-State has fixed the pension and passed the Pension Payment Order (PPO) by computing and calculating their pension from 1982. The respondents are disbursed the amount of GPF w.e.f 01.06.1982. 17. The appellant-State has fixed the pension and passed the Pension Payment Order (PPO) by computing and calculating their pension from 1982. In the captioned writ petitions, the respondents challenged the action of the State authorities in not counting the entire service from the date of their respective appointment for computation of pension. The learning Single Judge, while referring to the decision of the Coordinate Bench dated 29.06.2017 passed in group of petitions being Special Civil Application No.3250 of 2009 and allied writ petitions and also considering the judgment and order dated 02.07.2015 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.981 of 2015 has issued the directions, as mentioned hereinabove, directing the appellant-State to compute the pension of the respondent-employees by considering the period of service rendered by them before 01.04.1982 that is the cut-off date provided in Government Resolution 15.10.1984. 18. The learned Single Judge has also directed that the fixation of pension and arrears shall also be paid to the respondents, as per the direction issued by the Coordinates Bench and a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- is also imposed. 19. The present respondents want their service rendered in the CPF Scheme prior to 1982 to be computed and calculated for the fixation of pension on pro rata basis. The first decision emanating from the GPF Scheme appears to be dated 16.06.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in SCA No.29641 of 2007 (in the case of S.S.Patel vs. Director of Pension & Provident Fund, Gandhinagar & Ors., 2008 (4) G.L.R. 2983 ). Learned Single Judge, after considering the provisions of Appendix-XIV and Rule 41(1) of the Revised Pension Rules, contained in Appendix-XIV-C to the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1951 (“BCSR” in short), Volumes-II, allowed the writ petition for computation of past services rendered in different colleges. The provision of the BCSR is referred to in the policy / Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984. Thereafter, various writ petitions and Letters Patent Appeals were filed. The same are referred in the judgement dated 29.06.2017 passed in the group of writ petitions being Special Civil Application No.3250 of 2009 and allied matters, including the judgement dated 02.07.2015 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.981 of 2015, which is relied upon by learned Single Judge in the impugned judgement and order. 20. The same are referred in the judgement dated 29.06.2017 passed in the group of writ petitions being Special Civil Application No.3250 of 2009 and allied matters, including the judgement dated 02.07.2015 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.981 of 2015, which is relied upon by learned Single Judge in the impugned judgement and order. 20. Before the Division Bench, in the case of Bhupendra Vallabhdas Chudasama (supra ) (Letters Patent Appeal No.981 of 2015) reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of S.S.Patel (supra ), which deals with the provisions of the BCSR. On behalf of the employees provisions of Appendix- XIV-C of the BCSR was also relied upon before the Coordinate Bench. 21. The entire case of the respective parties hinges on the interpretation of the judgment and order dated 02.07.2015 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.981 of 2015 on the issue of fixation / computation of the pension by considering the prior services rendered by the staff of the respective institutions, governed by Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984. The Division Bench, while considering the issue relating to the implementation and computation / fixation of pension as per Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 framed the following three issues. The same are as under : - “[6.0] Heard learned advocates appearing for respective parties at length. Having heard learned advocates appearing for respective parties, the following three questions are posed for consideration of this Court. 1. Whether an employee like the original petitioner who has been appointed after the G.R. dated 15.10.1984 can be denied the pension / pensionary benefits under the G.R. dated 15.10.1984 on the ground that he had not exercised the option for GPF? 2. Whether past services of such an employee is required to be counted for qualifying services for pension? 3. Whether the past services is required to be counted / considered for fixation of the pension or for qualifying services for pension only?” 22. Indubitably, the case of the respondent-employees and the appellant-State is governed by issue Nos.2 and 3. There is no cavil with issue No.1 as the Scheme is already implemented and the employees are already extended the benefits of Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 w.e.f. 01.06.1982. Indubitably, the case of the respondent-employees and the appellant-State is governed by issue Nos.2 and 3. There is no cavil with issue No.1 as the Scheme is already implemented and the employees are already extended the benefits of Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 w.e.f. 01.06.1982. While answering issue Nos.2 and 3, which pertains to the counting of past services, the Division Bench has held thus : - "[6.2] Now, so far as question Nos.2 and 3 posed for consideration of this Court referred to hereinabove i.e. with respect to past services of such an employee is concerned, as such Clause 6 of the G.R. dated 15.10.1984 is very clear. Clause 6 of the G.R. dated 15.10.1984 confers benefits upon an employee of all previous services whether temporary, officiating or permanent, either in one or more than one nongovernment aided colleges, University Department, Higher Secondary School, who were being paid Grant-in- aid from Government, shall be taken into account for computing the length of qualifying service for pension under the said scheme. Therefore, all previous services whether temporary, officiating or permanent either in one or more than one nongovernment aided colleges, University Department, Higher Secondary School, who were being paid Grant-in-aid from the Government was required to be taken into account for computing the length of qualifying service for pension. For example if the qualifying service for pension is 10 years and after getting appointment after 01.04.1982 an employee does not have the qualifying service of 10 years, however his previous service prior to 01.04.1982 whether temporary, officiating or permanent either in one or more than one nongovernment aided colleges, University Department, Higher Secondary School who were being paid Grant in aid is counted and thereafter it is found that he is fulfilling the qualifying service for pension, in that case, his past services is required to be counted and/or taken into account for computing the qualifying length of service for pension. However, his previous service is not required to be considered for any other purpose other than for computing the length of qualifying service for pension i.e. for fixation of pension etc. However, his previous service is not required to be considered for any other purpose other than for computing the length of qualifying service for pension i.e. for fixation of pension etc. Therefore, on fair reading of Clause 6 of the G.R. dated 15.10.1984, it is observed and held that all the previous services of the employee who has been appointed after 01.04.1982, is required to be counted and/or taken into account for computing the qualifying length of service for pension only. [6.3] Identical question came to be considered by the learned Single Judge in the case of S.S. Patel (Supra). On interpretation of the very G.R. dated 15.10.1984, it is observed that so far as the width and amplitude of Clause 6 of the G.R. dated 15.10.1984 is concerned, it confers benefits upon employees of all previous service whether temporary, officiating or permanent either in one or more than one non-government aided Colleges, University, Higher Secondary School who are being paid grantin-aid from Government, shall be taken into account for computing the length of qualifying service for pension under the said scheme. Considering Clause 3 and 4 of the aforesaid G.R. dated 15.10.1984 it is further observed that the member of the staff recruited on or after 01.04.1982 was not supposed to exercise an option since he was to be automatically governed by the scheme. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge referred to hereinabove. [7.0] In view of the above, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has committed any error in directing the appellants to consider the previous service of the original petitioner i.e. for the period between 27.06.1968 to 17.11.1969 and 15.06.1970 to 30.06.1975 for computing the length of qualifying service for pension. However, as clarified hereinabove, the aforesaid previous service is required to be counted/considered and/or to be taken into consideration for computing the length of qualifying service only and not for computation of the pension and/or fixation of the amount of pension, as prior to 01.04.1982, the GPF Scheme / pension scheme was not applicable at all and it is made applicable with effect from 01.04.1982 and therefore, the past service / previous service is required to be taken into account only for computing the length of qualifying service for pension as per Clause 6 of the G.R. dated 15.10.1984. It is required to be noted that in the present case as such even if his previous service is not taken into account for fixation of the pension and/or for quantification of the amount of pension, the amount of pension is not likely to be changed. As observed hereinabove, the original petitioner was mainly denied the pensionary benefits / GPF Scheme as per the G.R. dated 15.10.1984 mainly on the ground that at the time when the original petitioner joined original respondent No.4 College/institution, he did not exercise the option for the pension scheme, which as observed and held hereinabove the original petitioner was not required to exercise such an option.” 23. The Division Bench, after considering the other judgements, including the judgement in the case of S.S.Patel (supra ) and the provision of Appendix-XIV to the BCSR, Volume-II, while clarifying issue nos.2 and 3 has held that for computation of the past services, as envisaged in Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 i.e. prior to 01.04.1982, the period rendered by an employee prior to 01.04.1982 shall be considered for computing the length of qualifying service “only” and not for computation of pension and / or fixation of amount of pension since prior to 01.04.1982, the GPF Scheme / Pension Scheme was not applicable at all and it is only made applicable with respect to 01.04.1982 and hence, the past service or previous service is required to be taken into account “only” for computing the length of qualifying service as per Clause 6 of Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984. 24. Clause 6 of Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984, which has been considered by the Division Bench, reads as under :- 4. The member of the staff recruited on or after 1st April, 1982 “ shall automatically be governed by this scheme. Such staff will not be allowed to opt for contributory provident fund scheme. 5. The members of teaching staff who have completed five yeas of continuous service will be treated as holding permanent post substantively for the purpose of this scheme. 6. In computing the length of qualifying service for pension under this scheme, all previous service whether temporary officiating or permanent either in one or more than one nongovernment aided colleges, University Department, Higher Secondary School who are being paid Grantinaid from Government shall be taken into account. 6. In computing the length of qualifying service for pension under this scheme, all previous service whether temporary officiating or permanent either in one or more than one nongovernment aided colleges, University Department, Higher Secondary School who are being paid Grantinaid from Government shall be taken into account. The period of break in service will not be considered as qualifying service i.e. actual service rendered will be considered as qualifying services. 7. The general provisions of chapter XI of BCSR Rules Vol.I will be applicable in granting retirement benefits to the member of the staff member of the staff under this scheme except where otherwise provided.” 25. The judgment and order of the Division Bench along with various other orders dealing with the Scheme of 15.10.1984 was assailed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vide an order dated 17.12.2021 passed in Civil Appeal No.531 of 2017, while recording the prior litigation between the employees and the State has held thus : - "7. The position which emerges is that the judgment of the High Court has attained finality in respect of one batch of pensioners. No distinction exists in fact between the cases of the pensioners who are respondents to the present batch of cases with the pensioners in the earlier batches, who are governed by the orders by which the Special Leave Petitions by the State of Gujarat were dismissed. Consequently, it would be wholly iniquitous to apply a different yardstick to a batch of pensioners who are respondents to these proceedings. when the judgment of the High Court has attained finality in respect of a similar batch of pensioners who are governed by the same judgment. They are receiving pensions. 8. In the above situation, we find no reason to entertain the present Civil Appeals and Special Leave Petitions. The Civil Appeals and the Special Leave Petitions shall stand dismissed. Compliance with the judgment of the High Court be effected within a period of two months from today. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.” 26. They are receiving pensions. 8. In the above situation, we find no reason to entertain the present Civil Appeals and Special Leave Petitions. The Civil Appeals and the Special Leave Petitions shall stand dismissed. Compliance with the judgment of the High Court be effected within a period of two months from today. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.” 26. Thus, after the litigation was over and the pension of the respondent-employees are fixed, after the dismissal of the SLPs, confirming the judgment and order passed by this Court, including the judgment dated 02.07.2015 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.981 of 2015, it is not open for the respondent-employees to claim the computation, fixation and grant of arrears of pension on the basis of the earlier services as per their understanding. As held by the Coordinate Bench, the computation can only be done for the purpose of counting the length of service, and nothing else. 27. Learned Single Judge, though has considered the observations recorded by the Division Bench in the judgment and order dated 02.07.2015, it appears that the learned Single Judge has ignored the expression ”ONLY” and also the observations recorded by the Division Bench to the effect that “the fixation of the amount of pension by considering the prior services of an employee rendered by them prior to 01.04.1982, when the GPF scheme was made applicable cannot be considered as the Scheme was made applicable from the cut-off date of 01.04.1982, since the employees who have rendered their service prior to 1982, in CPF Scheme and not in GPF scheme.” These are vital observations which go to the root of the dispute. These observations / directions are confirmed by the Supreme Court and hence, such directions can neither be supplemented nor supplanted by introducing anything novel in the judgment dated 02.07.2015 and order passed by the Division Bench. All the employees governed by the Scheme are conferred the benefit of pension after computing the number of years as directed by this Court. Accordingly, the respondents are granted pension after adopting similar methodology / procedure as adopted and implemented in cases of other similarly situated employees. Thus, no exception can be carved out in cases of the respondents after the judgement and orders passed by this Court, as confirmed by the Supreme Court are implemented. Accordingly, the respondents are granted pension after adopting similar methodology / procedure as adopted and implemented in cases of other similarly situated employees. Thus, no exception can be carved out in cases of the respondents after the judgement and orders passed by this Court, as confirmed by the Supreme Court are implemented. The things which are laid quietus cannot be allowed to be resurrected by issuing additional / supplemental directions. All the issues emanating from the Scheme are already dealt with and answered in the previous litigation. Hence, except direction No.1 issued by the learned Single Judge other directions were uncalled for. 28. The appellant-State is under an obligation to consider the length of service of the employees as per the directions issued by Division Bench in the judgement dated 02.07.2015 [ Bhupendra Vallabhdas Chudasama (supra )] in paragraph No.7 and accordingly, they have to compute the years of service and fix the pension of the respondents strictly as per observations made therein in case the same is not done. The rest of the directions with regard to the payment of arrears and fixation of pension do not fall in line with the directions issued by the Division Bench, hence the same are quashed and set aside. 29. So far as the directions issued by the learned Single Judge for payment of costs of Rs.1,00,000/- is concerned, the same is already implemented and paid to the respondent– employees. Hence, such amount shall not be recovered. Thus, it is clarified that the entire issue, which has been raised in the writ petition and in the present appeals is answered in terms of the directions issued by the Coordinate Bench in the judgment dated 02.07.2015 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.981 of 2015, as recorded in paragraph No.7. 30. Resultantly, the Letters Patent Appeals succeed in part The same are partly allowed. 31. At this stage, learned advocate Mr.Devnani, has submitted that three employees of the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.10766 of 2023, viz., (i) Chandrashankar Mangalbhai Rawal has passed away on 08.07.2023; (ii) Baldevbhai Ambalal Patel has passed away on 25.10.2024; & (iii) Babulal Bhagwanji Kapupara has passed away on 20.07.2023. It is clarified that in their cases, it will be open for the legal heirs to approach the appellant - State authority for claiming benefits, as observed hereinabove. 32. It is clarified that in their cases, it will be open for the legal heirs to approach the appellant - State authority for claiming benefits, as observed hereinabove. 32. All the connected civil applications do not survive and the same are disposed of accordingly. 33. Registry to place a copy of this order in each of the connected matters.