Gujarat High Court
Gujarat Vidhyapith vs Mustaali Ibrahimbhai Masavi on 5 August, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1312/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1312 of 2019
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6550 of 2008
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1740 of 2019
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19003 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 646 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19003 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 900 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6550 of 2008
=============================================
GUJARAT VIDHYAPITH
Versus
MUSTAALI IBRAHIMBHAI MASAVI & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MS MAITHILI MEHTA, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MUKUND M DESAI(286) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VEDANT RAJGURU for MR AJ YAGNIK(1372) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 05/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. The present set of Intra court appeals raising common issues have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.
Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:54:38 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1312/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined
2. These intra court appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 15.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in a set of Writ petitions raising issue of non- grant of pension to 24 employees of Gujarat Vidhyapith, who were posted in the scheme namely Tribal Research & Training Institute (TRTI). We may note that during the pendency of the present appeals, Gujarat Vidhyapith which was a deemed University, has been taken over by the State Government and has been notified as a State University.
3. Heard Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant. Mr. Vedant Rajguru, learned advocate holding brief of Mr. Anand J. Yagnik, learned advocate appears for the respondents.
4. Having heard Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State appellant, we may simply note the findings returned by the learned Single judge from paras '9' to '14', as under :-
"(9) The established facts in the writ petition are that all the petitioners have rendered 25 to 30 years of regular service under the respondents. All the petitioners are appointed after following regular procedure of law between 1962 and 2002 by the Gujarat Vidhyapith. It appears that only 24 employees were appointed and out of them 20 have retired from service. The petitioners thereafter were posted under the TRTI. The TRTI was established pursuant to the directions and suggestions of the State Government issued to the Gujarat Vidhyapith, which is a deemed University and is receiving 100% grant from the State Government. The State Government vide Resolution dated 16.07.1962 accorded sanction for the implementation and execution of the scheme of the TRTI. A perusal Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:54:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1312/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined of the resolution suggests that the formation of the TRTI was suggested by the Central Government. It is not in dispute that the TRTI is run by 50% grant received by the Gujarat Vidhyapith and 50% financial assistant is provided by the State Government.
(10) It also an established fact that all the petitioners were appointed by the Gujarat Vidhyapith and all the terms and conditions of the services which were applicable to the other employees of the Gujarat Vidyapith are also made applicable to the petitioners. The employees, who are working in the Higher Education Department, the Gujarat Vidhyapith are being paid pension since 1988 after their retirement, whereas the petitioners are denied since their employment under the TRTI is not considered as pensionable. Vide communication dated 16/17.02.1986, the Registrar, Gujarat Vidhyapith requested to extend the pension benefit to the staff of the Gujarat Vidhyapith. Thereafter, the benefits are extended to the staff as they are covered under the maintenance grant of the UGC.
(11) There are various inter se communications between the Gujarat Vidhyapith and the State Government on the issue of grant of pension to the staff of the TRTI. It appears that lastly, vide communication dated 24.12.2001, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, New Delhi asked the State Government to submit a proposal for financial assistance under the Research and Training programme.
The details of the released amount of previous years were also called for along with the proposal. The tenor of the communication dated 24.12.2001 reveals that the State Government has already sent a proposal to the Central Government to provide funds to extend the pension scheme to the staff of the TRTI i.e. to the petitioners, but nothing is shown to this court whether such proposal was sent or not. Thereafter, by various communications the Registrar and the Director of the Gujarat Vidhyapith have requested the State Government to approve the Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:54:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1312/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined pension scheme to the petitioners. In one of the communications dated 14.03.2011, addressed by the Registrar of Gujarat Vidhyapith to the Deputy Secretary of the Tribal Department of the State, it is specifically stated that the pension scheme, which is made applicable to the employees of the Higher Education Department of the Gujarat Vidhyapith can also be made applicable to the employees of the TRTI, and the amount of the CPF, which is received by such employees, will be deposited with the State Government.
(12) Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the entire staff/employees of the Higher Education of the Gujarat Vidhyapith are getting pension, except the petitioners, who are working under the TRTI. The appointment order dated 08.05.1967 appointing one of the petitioners - Dr. Mustaali Ibrahimbhai Masavi (i.e. petitioner of connected writ petition Special Civil Application No.6550 of 2008) reveals that he was appointed by the Gujarat Vidhyapith as an employee of the Gujarat Vidhyapith but posted as a Research Assistant in the TRTI. Thus, the petitioners cannot be discriminated from the other employees of the Gujarat Vidhyapith only on the basis of their posting. The respondents cannot deny the benefit of pension on the ground of their "posting" in the TRTI. The undisputed fact is that the appointment orders are issued by the Gujarat Vidhyapith by undertaking a regular recruitment process and not by the TRTI and hence, for all purposes they are to be treated as the employees of the Gujarat Vidhyapith and not the employees of the TRTI. The posting of the petitioners in the TRTI cannot alter their appointments. They cannot be in any manner termed as the employees of the TRTI. The respondents are misconstruing their "posting" as "appointments". Thus, the pension scheme, which is made applicable to other employees of the Gujarat Vidhyapith is required to be extended to the petitioners as their original appointment is made by the Gujarat Vidhyapith and not by the TRTI. The petitioners cannot be denied pension on the pretext of non-
Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:54:38 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1312/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined availability of grant. The pension of the petitioners is required to be conferred from the grant which is received for the employees of the Gujarat Vidhyapith. The State Government, the Central Government and the Gujarat Vidhyapith are/were required to include the pension expenditure of the petitioners and sanction the grants accordingly so that they can receive pension as received by other employees in wake of the fact that there were only 24 such employees. It was not an uphill task for the respondent authorities to manage the grant for pension of 24 employees. As a model employer, the State Government/Central Government and the Gujarat Vidhyapith should have tidied up the controversy by making necessary adjustment in the grant for conferring pensionary benefits to the petitioners along with other employees. Since the petitioners have received the CPF, the prayer made for 12% interest is denied.
(13) On the bedrock of the aforesaid observations and analysis, the petitions are allowed.
(14) The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of pension to the petitioners as granted to the other employees of the Gujarat Vidhyapith. The amount of Contributory Provide Fund, which is received by the petitioners shall be adjusted while paying the pension or arrears to them. Necessary orders fixing and paying the pension to the petitioners shall be passed within a period of 02 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order."
5. Suffice it to note that there is no challenge to the findings of the learned Single judge that 24 employees, viz. the petitioners therein were appointed after undertaking a regular recruitment process by the appointment orders issued by Gujarat Vidhyapith, the then deemed University, and they were not appointed in the Scheme, viz. TRTI; mere posting of Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:54:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1312/2019 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined the petitioners in the scheme would not alter the their appointments and the respondents are misconstruing their posting as appointments; pension scheme is applicable to other employees of Gujarat Vidhyapith who are equally placed and appointed in the same manner as the petitioners herein.
6. In view of the above findings, the directions issued by the learned Single judge to the respondent/State appellant herein to grant benefit of pension to the petitioners as has been granted to other employees of Gujarat Vidhyapith, cannot be said to suffer from any error of law.
7. No interference is called for. All the appeals are dismissed, accordingly.
Pending civil applications, if any, would not survive and shall stand disposed, of accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) BIJOY B. PILLAI Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:54:38 IST 2025