Gujarat High Court
Nirmalaben Hirabhai Jethwa vs Jetpur Navagadh Nagar Palika on 11 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13176/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13176 of 2014
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 653 of 2015
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16057 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NIRMALABEN HIRABHAI JETHWA & ORS.
Versus
JETPUR NAVAGADH NAGAR PALIKA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VICKY B MEHTA(5422) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,17,18,2,20,22,23,24,25,27,3,5,6,7
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Petitioner(s) No.
14,15,16,19,21,26,4,8,9
MR BHAVESH P TRIVEDI & MR DEVANG BHATT for HS MUNSHAW,
ADVOCATES for the respective contesting Respondents
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 11/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Since the issue involved in all these matters is identical, with consent of the learned advocates for the parties, all these matters are taken up for hearing and final disposal today.
Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:23:33 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13176/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined
2. By way of these petitions, the petitioners seek benefits from General Provident Fund Scheme and not from Contributory Provident Fund.
3. Though advocate notice is served to all the petitioners, some of the petitioners have chosen not to appear and pursue the prayers as prayed for. However, learned advocate Mr. Vicky Mehta is appearing for some of the petitioners.
4. Heard learned advocates.
5.1 Learned advocate Mr.Vicky Mehta for the petitioners has raised main contention before this Court that the petitioners have not been granted benefits of the General Provident Fund Scheme and in turn, pension after retirement by the respondent authorities. He has also raised contention that the respondent Nagarpalika should frame the rules and get approval from the competent authority and should provide pension scheme to the petitioners. He has submitted that Nagarpalika has to frame its own rules under the provisions of the Gujarat Municipalities Act and Rules and thereafter, the Nagarpalika has to approve the same from the competent authority of the Government. He has cited examples of other Nagarpalikas where the employees are receiving pensionary Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:23:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13176/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined benefits.
5.2 He has further submitted that the Nagarpalikas have rejected the representation of the petitioner regarding it on the ground that the Nagarpalika has only CPF scheme and not a GPF scheme, which is contrary to law and violative or Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He has submitted that it is an obligatory duty of the Nagarpalika to frame GPF scheme for their employees. He has submitted that the petitioners are ready to deposit the amount of CPF before the Nagarpalika and GPF scheme may be implemented and pension may be given to the petitioners. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decisions : (i) of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Una Nagar Palika versus Kaliben Balubhai Makwana & Anr., reported in 2018 (11) SCALE 364 and (ii) of this Court in the case of Bhagwanji Vashrambhai Javia versus State of Gujarat recorded on Special Civil Application No.13333 of 2014 dated 11.04.2016. He has submitted that these petitions may be allowed.
6.1 Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Bhavesh Trivedi and learned advocate Mr. Devang Bhatt for learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for the contesting respondent/s authorities have submitted that the employees of the Nagarpalika are Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:23:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13176/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined not entitled for pension because the Nagarpalika has not accepted the pension scheme. It is further submitted that the Nagarpalika cannot be implement any such scheme and it has to obtain permission from the State Government. It is submitted that since the GPF scheme is not available in the Nagarpalika, the question of granting pension does not arise at all. It is submitted that majority of the Nagarpalikas in the State do not have GPF scheme. They operate only CPF scheme for their employees. It is submitted that the respondent authorities have deposited their contribution towards the CPF amount regularly and the said benefits have also been paid to their employees at the time of retirement.
6.2 In support of their contentions, they have relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Uttar Pradesh Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2024) 9 SCC 331. They have submitted that these petitions may be dismissed.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have perused the documents available on record.
Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:23:33 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13176/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined 7.1 From the record, it transpires that the petitioners are the employees of the respective nagarpalikas indisputably. The nagarpalika does not have the GPF scheme approved by the State Government. Almost all the Nagarpalikas of the State has CPF scheme. The respondent Nagarpalikas have regularly deposited their contribution towards the CPF before the concerned authorities indisputably. The employees retired from these nagarpalikas have also received the benefits of the CPF scheme at the time of their retirement. There is no pending dues towards the CPF qua the petitioners and that is not the issue of the petitioners before this Court. 7.2 At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association (supra), more particularly, paras : 44 to 46 thereof, which are as under :
"44. In the matter of Prabhu Narain vs. State of U.P., (2004) 13 SCC 662 , this Court held that to receive pension the employees must establish that they are entitled to pension under a particular rule or scheme. The following has been held in par 5 :Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:23:33 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13176/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined "5. No doubt pension is not a bounty, it is a valuable right given to an employee, but, in the first place it must be shown that the employee is entitled to pension under a particular rule or the scheme, as the case may be."
45. In yet another judgment rendered in Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation & Anr. Vs. Mohini Devi, (2013) 11 SCC 603, it is held thus in para nos. 7, 8 & 9 :
"7. The Division Bench has considered the Regulations but failed to notice that there is apparent error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Indisputably, the employees concerned retired from service in 1991 and 1992 and after retirement they were paid CPF including the share of employer's contribution. Hence, as per Regulation 3 of the Regulations, no right accrued to the appellants/employees to claim pensionary benefits without first depositing the amount and complying Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:23:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13176/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined with the Regulations.
8. The matter was examined by this Court in Pepsu RTC vs. Mangal Singh [(2011) 11 SCC 702 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 322], wherein it was held as under: (SCC p. 722, paras 51-52) "51. The common thread which runs through all these appeals canvassed before us is that the respondents have failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Regulations, which govern the Pension Scheme. We have already considered the nature and effect of the Regulations, which are made under a statute. These statutory regulations require to be interpreted in the same manner which is adopted while interpreting any other statutory provisions. The Corporation as well as the respondents are obliged and bound to comply with its mandatory conditions and requirements. Any action or Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:23:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13176/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined conduct deviating from these conditions shall render such action illegal and invalid. Moreover, the respondents have availed the retiral benefits arising out of CPF and gratuity without any protest.
52. The respondents in all these appeals, before us, have made a claim for pensionary benefits under the Pension Scheme for the first time only after their retirement with an unreasonable delay of more than 8 years. It is not in dispute, in some appeals, that the respondents never opted for the Pension Scheme for their alleged want of knowledge for non-service of individual notices.
In other appeals, although the respondents applied for the option of the Pension Scheme but indisputably never fulfilled the quintessential conditions envisaged by the Regulations which are statutory in nature."Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:23:33 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13176/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined
9. We are, therefore, of the opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by this Court in the judgment referred to hereinabove, the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge [Madugiri v. Rajasthan SRTC, WP (C) No. 5425 of 1993 (Civil Writ 5425/1993), order dated 5-1-2006 (Raj)] and the Division Bench [Rajasthan SRTC v. Madugiri, Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 212 of 2006, decided on 11-10-2006 (Raj)] of the High Court cannot be sustained in law."
46. The common thread in the above referred judgments of this Court is that pension is a right and not a bounty. It is a constitutional right for which an employee is entitled on his superannuation. However, pension can be claimed only when it is permissible under the relevant rules or a scheme. If an employee is covered under the Provident Fund Scheme and is not holding a pensionable post, he cannot claim pension, nor the writ court can issue mandamus directing the employer to provide pension to Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:23:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13176/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined an employee who is not covered under the rules."
7.3 Since there is no GPF scheme in existence, the respondent Nagarpalikas cannot give pension to its employees. There is a procedure for the Nagarpalika for the GPF scheme, which is that the Nagarpalika has to send the proposal for the GPF scheme to the State Government and the State Government, in turn, has to approve it. In the present case, the respondents Nagarpalikas have not sent any proposal to the State Government and therefore the question of approval of the State Government for the GPF scheme does not arise. Under the circumstances, in the absence of the GPF scheme, the respondent Nagarpalikas cannot pay the pension to the present petitioners.
7.4 Further, the CPF scheme is already in existence and the respondent Nagarpalikas have paid all the dues regarding the CPF scheme to the petitioners at the time of their retirement. Under the circumstances, since there is no pension scheme framed by the respondents Nagarpalikas, therefore, not sent the same for approval of the State Government and thereby the State Government has not approved it, the respondents cannot be directed for the same. These petitions are devoid of merit, since there is no violation of any rules or scheme by the respondents Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:23:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13176/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined Nagarpalikas. The action of the respondents Nagarpalikas is just and proper. The petitioners have received their dues from the CPF scheme and there is no dispute about it. These petitions, therefore, need to be dismissed. 7.5 There cannot be any dispute with regard to the law enunciated in the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this Court relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioners, however, it cannot be helpful to the petitioners any further in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. The present case does not fall within the purview of these decisions with such facts. Therefore, the present petitions deserve to be dismissed.
8. In view of above, these petitions are dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged.
9. It would be open for the petitioners to make appropriate representation / application before the State Government for framing the GPF scheme, if permissible and the authorities are at liberty to decide the same in accordance with law/policy.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) M.H. DAVE Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:23:33 IST 2025