Gujarat High Court
Babubhai Punjabhai Kharadi vs Office If Directorate Pf Pension And ... on 24 July, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7829/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7829 of 2024
========================================================
BABUBHAI PUNJABHAI KHARADI
Versus
OFFICE IF DIRECTORATE PF PENSION AND PROVIDENT FUND & ORS.
========================================================
Appearance:
MR CHINTAN N DESAI(9940) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MITUL GAUTAM ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR MANISH J PATEL(2131) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 24/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Chintan Desai for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mitul Gautam for the respondent-State and learned Advocate Mr. Manish Patel on behalf of respondents no. 3 and 4.
2. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mwaives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.
3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following prayers :
"9(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for extending the benefits of old pension scheme i.e GPF Scheme instead of CPF/NPS Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 21:32:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7829/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined and all other consequential benefits flowing thereof along with arrears;
(B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and /or other appropriate writ, order or direction to responses to grant the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988;
(C) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents to consider the case of the petitioner by extending the benefits fo leave encashment of the Earned Leave pending with the petitioner which the petitioner is legally entitled too along with all the retirement benefits;
(D) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass such other and further order which deems to fit, just and proper in the interest of justice."
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he had joined service with the respondent No.3 as Daily wager w.e.f. 01.06.1982 on daily wages and since the services of the petitioner had been terminated on 01.10.1989 the petitioner had been constrained to approach the learned Labour Court by preferring Reference (LCH) No. 210 of 1996 and whereas vide award dated 13.02.1997, the learned Labour Court had directed reinstatement with 50% back-wages, more particularly with continuity of service. It appears that the petitioner had been reinstated in the year 03.10.2011 and had continued as such till 30.06.2019 i.e. till the date of his regular superannuation.
Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 21:32:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7829/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined
5. It appears that in the interregnum, the award passed by the learned Labour Court had been assailed by the respondent-State by preferring SCA No. 12383 of 2002, and whereas a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 31.03.2003 had confirmed the award granting reinstatement with 50% backwages and with continuity of service by dismissing petition preferred by the State.
5.1 It appears that the said decision had been assailed by the respondent- State by preferring appeal and whereas vide decision dated 17.02.2014, Division Bench of this Court had disposed the appeal confirming the decision dated 31.03.2003.
6. Considering such a position, it would appear that the learned Labour Court had inferred in favour of the petitioner as regards the petitioner having worked for more than 240 days every year with effect from 01.06.1982 till the date of termination i.e. 01.10.1989. It would also appear that the period from the date of termination till the date of award was covered by the grant of continuity by the learned Labour Court with 50% back-wages which part of the order finally came to be confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench vide decision dated 17.02.2014 as referred to hereinabove. Insofar as the period after the date of award is concerned, while the learned Labour Court passed the award on 13.02.1997, yet, the petitioner was reinstated on 03.10.2011 inspite of there being no interim relief against the order of reinstatement, therefore the period from the date of the award till the date of reinstatement is required to be treated as period in duty. Thus, the respondents are required to calculate the entitlement of the petitioner on basis of the above, more particularly entitlement for grant Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 21:32:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7829/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined of benefit under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and whereas all available benefits as per the entitlement would also be required to be paid to the petitioner within a specific period of time.
7. Furthermore insofar as the submission made by learned Advocate Mr. Patel that there is no specific order of continuity, this Court seeks to rely upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Nandkishor Shravan Ahirrao Vs. Kosan Industries (P) Ltd. vs. Private Limited reported in 2021 ( 14) SCC 781, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has inter alia laid down the law that expect the Labour Court specifically denying continuity of service, it has to be presumed that continuity of service is part of the award passed by the learned Labour Court.
8. Having regard to the above, the following directions are passed :
(i) Based upon the observations as above, the period from entry in service i.e 01.06.1982 till the date of termination i.e. 01.10.1989, shall be treated as period in duty where the petitioner had completed 240 days per year.
(ii) From 02.10.1989 till 13.02.1997, the said period though will be treated as period in service, the benefits as the petitioner would be entitled to 50% of actual benefit for the said period.
(iii) The period from the date of the award i.e. 13.02.1997 till the date of retirement i.e. 30.06.2019 including the period when petitioner actually worked shall be treated as the petitioner having actually worked and the difference of salary from the date of award Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 21:32:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7829/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined till the date the petitioner was reinstated would have to be paid to the petitioner not including payment made for period actually worked, along with treating the petitioner as being in employment as a regular employee.
(iv) The respondent No.3, in consultation with the respondent No.1, shall calculate the entitlement of the petitioner on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 including all retiral benefits as well as pensionary benefits as per old pension scheme and appropriate benefits thereupon shall be paid to the petitioner.
(v) The entire exercise shall be done by the respondents within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In case the disbursement is not done within the period of ten weeks, then the petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
(vi) The period between the date of award till the date of actual reinstatement shall be treated as period in service and the arrears shall be paid to the petitioner upon verification, if not paid.
9. With the above observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) NIRU Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by NIRU AMIN(HC00211) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 21:32:16 IST 2025