Gujarat High Court
Pratimaben Y Jani vs State Of Gujarat on 20 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13000/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13000 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT Sd/-
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
=============================================
PRATIMABEN Y JANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. FORUM SUKHADWALA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 20/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1] With the consent of the parties, the present Writ Petition is taken up for hearing. [2] Heard Mr. Yogen Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner as also Ms. Forum Sukhadwala, learned AGP for the respondent - State and its authorities, at length.
Page 1 of 23 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:21:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13000/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined [3] The present Writ Petition is filed under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:
"[a] This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to direct the respondent authorities to treat the period of six days break in service from 1.10.1971 to 7.10.1971 as qualifying service and to treat the entire period of service from 11.3.1965 to 31.12.1999 rendered by the petitioner's husband as pensionable service and accordingly to release the regular increments, higher pay scales and fix pension as well as family pension of the petitioner;
[b] This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned action on the part of the respondent authorities in not releasing the higher pay scale to the petitioner and declare that the petitioner is not required to attend and pass the departmental examination as per the Government Resolution dated 16th August 1994;
[c] This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to direct the respondent authorities to immediately complete the exercise of fixing the pay of the petitioner's husband after granting him the benefit of first higher grade pay scale as on 1st June 1987 as he completed period of nine years on the post of Surveyor and second higher grade pay as on 1st June 1996 as he completed 18 years of service on the post of Surveyor with all consequential benefits including that of revised pay scale;
[d] This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to direct the respondent authorities to pay interest on the delayed payment of arrears and family pension on the basis of Government Resolution dated 5th July 1991 at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accrual of such benefit in favour of the petitioner till actual payment within a period of 3 months considering the fact that the petitioner is aged widow lady and is suffering from serious ailments;
[e] Pending admission and final disposal of this petition the Honourable Page 2 of 23 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:21:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13000/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to deposit the difference amount and interest as calculated on the basis of refixation of the salary of the petitioner's husband before this Honourable Court and also fix pay, revision pension/family pension to the petitioner regularly;
[f] This Honourable Court may be pleased to grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
[g] costs of the petition be provided for from the respondents jointly and severally;"
FACTS OF THE CASE [4] The shorts facts of the case appear to be that the petitioner happens to be wife of late Shri Yagneshkumar Jani, who initially joined services with respondents - authorities as Uttara Clerk-cum-Surveyor on 11.03.1965 and worked in the Office of Superintendent of Land Record, Ahmedabad. As husband of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "deceased employee") could not pass departmental examination, vide communication order dated 22.09.1971 passed by the Superintendent of Land Record, Ahmedabad, services of deceased employee discontinued by relieving him from said post on 30.09.1971.
Page 3 of 23 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:21:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13000/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined [4.1] In the meantime, it appears that deceased employee got appointed by Superintendent of Land Record, Vadodara as Surveyor vide its order dated 27.09.1971 with same pay-scale which he was drawing when relieving from service. The record suggests that he joined the Office of Superintendent of Land Record, Vadodara on 07.10.1971 and retired on 31.12.1999 on the post of Supervisor.
[4.2] According to the case of the petitioner, deceased employee having joined the service on 11.03.1965 and worked till 31.12.1999, there was a break in service of around 6 days between 01.10.1971 to 06.10.1971. Nonetheless, to calculate pensionary benefits, entire service of deceased employee ought to have been considered by the respondent, thereby, 34 years of service of deceased employee requires to be considered as qualifying service for granting pensionary benefits.
[4.3] Further, deceased employee having not been Page 4 of 23 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:21:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13000/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined paid higher pay-scales during his entire service tenure and as such, not received any benefits as per Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, whereby deceased employee entitled to receive 1st and 2nd higher grade pay- scale, having completed at least 9 years each of service from 01.06.1987 till 31.12.1999.
[4.4] As aforesaid, service benefits have been not paid by the respondents, rather denied vide communication order dated 28.03.2013 by holding that there was a break in service, thus, previous service of deceased employee from 11.03.1965 till 30.09.1971 cannot be considered for calculating pensionary service. So far as not granting higher pay-scale is concerned, only reason assigned that deceased employee having not cleared departmental examination, not entitled to receive any higher pay-scale.
[4.5] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision of respondent No.3 - Settlement Commissioner & Director of Land Records, the present Writ Petition has been filed for the aforestated reliefs: Page 5 of 23 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:21:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13000/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER [4] Mr. Yogen Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner would respectfully submit that respondents -
authorities have completely misinterpreted Rule 34 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Pension Rules, 2002'), thereby, committed serious error in law by not considering the period of service of deceased employee from 11.03.1965 to 30.09.1971.
[4.1] Mr. Pandya, learned advocate would respectfully submit that as per Rule 34 of the Pension Rules, 2002, unless there are specific entries regarding break in service in the service record of the Government employee, all service from the date of entry to the date of retirement shall be treated as continuous. It is submitted that in the case of deceased employee, there is only one service book maintained by the respondents - authorities wherein also there is no entry as regards any break in service recorded.
[4.2] Mr. Pandya, learned advocate would Page 6 of 23 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:21:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13000/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined respectfully submit that assuming without admitting that there was an interruption in service but considering the period of interruption i.e. 6 days only (01.10.1971 to 06.10.1971), as per Rule 34(1) of the Pension Rules, 2002, such interruption would be calculated in the service and requires to be treated as qualifying service.
[4.3] Mr. Pandya, learned advocate would respectfully submit that considering Rule 34 of the Pension Rules, 2002, deceased employee would entitle to receive pension by considering his qualifying service from 1965 till 1999, and thereby, respondents - authorities require to consider 34 years of uninterrupted service of deceased employee and accordingly, pension & family pension require to be paid to him, in turn, to petitioner. [4.4] Mr. Pandya, would respectfully submit that deceased employee was wrongly denied benefit of G.R. dated 16.08.1994, whereby respondents have wrongly denied the benefits of not granting higher pay-scale to him. It is submitted that as per aforesaid G.R., it is Page 7 of 23 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:21:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13000/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined nowhere suggested that to get higher pay-scale, employee concerned requires to undergo any departmental examination. It is submitted that as per aforesaid G.R., only to get promotion, it was compulsory to clear departmental examination but relaxation to employee crosses the age of 45 years on 05.07.1991 granted whereby not required to participate in such examination. It is submitted that undisputedly, deceased employee was more than 45 years as on 05.07.1991, as born on 18.12.1941.
[4.5] Mr. Pandya would respectfully submit that as per aforesaid G.R., 9 years of service had been completed by deceased employee on 01.07.1987 having joined in the service on 11.03.1965 or as the case may be on 07.10.1971, thereby, entitled to receive 1st higher grade pay-scale and thereafter, on completion of further 9 years of service, entitled to receive 2nd higher grade pay-scale as he retired from service on 31.12.1999. It is respectfully submitted that the respondents have incorrectly stated in its reply that, to get higher grade pay-scale, deceased Page 8 of 23 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:21:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13000/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined employee requires to clear departmental examination. [4.5] To buttress his arguments, Mr. Pandya, learned advocate has placed on record the photo copy of service book of deceased employee, which is ordered to be taken on record.
[4.6] Thus, making the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner would request this Court to allow the present Writ Petition. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS [5] Per contra, Ms. Forum Sukhadwala, learned AGP would respectfully submit that there is no error committed by respondent No.3 while issuing communication dated 28.03.2013 and as such, there is no merit in the present petition which may be dismissed. [5.1] Learned AGP would respectfully submit that undisputedly, there was break in service, inasmuch as, deceased employee was relieved earlier from his past service i.e. 30.09.1971, whereas, he joined service at Page 9 of 23 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:21:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13000/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined Superintendent of Land Record at Vadodara as Surveyor on 07.10.1971. Thus, there was a break of around 6 days in the service.
[5.2] Learned AGP would further respectfully submit that it is not even the case of the petitioner that deceased employee in his previous employment, either deputed as Surveyor in the aforesaid Office or by retaining the previous service allowed to join the aforesaid Office and in that view of the matter, no benefits of Rule 34 of the Pension Rules, 2002 can be granted.
[5.3] Learned AGP would further submit that as deceased employee was removed from his past service vide its order dated 22.09.1971, on the ground that he did not clear the departmental examination and as per Rule 32 of the Pension Rules, 2002, in a case of removal of a Government employee from service would entail forfeiture of his past service unless specific entry to the contrary being made in the service record, which is none in the present case.
Page 10 of 23 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:21:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13000/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined [5.4] Learned AGP would respectfully submit that merely because there is one service book maintained by the respondent - authority, of the deceased employee would not ipso facto entitle the petitioner to claim any benefits of Rule 34 of the Pension Rules, 2002. [5.5] Learned AGP would respectfully submit that deceased employee unable to clear departmental examination during his life time, he was not entitled to receive higher pay-scale as alleged. It is respectfully submitted that benefits of exemption from appearing in departmental examination, having crossed the age of 45 years as on 05.07.1997, would not apply in the case of deceased employee as prior to such date, on number of occasions, deceased employee given chance/s to clear departmental examination but he failed. [5.6] Making the aforesaid submissions, learned AGP would request this Court to dismiss the present Writ Petition.
Page 11 of 23 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:21:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13000/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined [6] POINTS FOR DETERMINATION. I. Whether deceased employee would entitle to get
benefit of Rule 34 of the Pension Rules, 2002 and as such, respondents authorities require to consider service period of deceased employee between 11.03.1965 to 31.12.1999 as qualifying service to receive pension, or not?
II. Whether to receive any higher grade pay-scale as per G.R. dated 16.08.1994, deceased employee requires to clear departmental examination or not? ANALYSIS Point No. I [7] The facts which are observed hereinabove, are not in dispute. The deceased employee joined the services of respondent on 11.03.1965 as Clerk-cum-Surveyor, although worked in Superintendent of Land Record, Ahmedabad till 30.09.1971 as he could not clear departmental examination, so vide order dated 22.09.1971 relieved from his service. Page 12 of 23 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:21:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13000/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined [7.1] At the same time, Superintendent of Land Record, Vadodara appointed him vide its order dated 27.09.1971 as a Surveyor in its Office. It is not in dispute that deceased employee joined such service on 07.10.1971. As per service book of deceased employee produced on record by learned advocate Mr. Pandya, would clearly show that there is only one service book maintained by respondent for aforesaid employment/s of deceased employee. The entry in the service book would not suggest that there is any new employment given to deceased employee by Superintendent of Land Record, Vadodara, having allowed him to join service on 07.10.1971 as Surveyor.
[7.2] Having scanned the service book of deceased employee, it is not even remotely found that respondent authority at given point of time, treated subsequent appointment of the deceased employee vide its order dated 27.09.1971 as afresh / new appointment. [7.3] To get the things more clear and so that there would remain no scintilla of doubt in anyone's mind, this Page 13 of 23 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:21:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13000/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined Court called upon learned AGP Ms. Forum Sukhadwala to submit original copy of service book of deceased employee. Learned AGP, through one Mr. J.S.Kadia, Survey-Mamlatdar-2, Ahmedabad, produced the original service book of deceased employee for ready perusal of this Court. Even after going through the original service book, there is no change as photo copy of original service book already produced on record by learned advocate Mr. Pandya, and it is accurate-one.
[7.4] At this stage, it would be apt to refer Rules 32 & 34 of the Pension Rules, 2002, which read as under:
"32. Forfeiture of service on dismissal or removal: Dismissal of a Government employee from a service or post entails forfeiture of his past service. Removal of a Government employee from service or post entails forfeiture of his past service unless specific entries to the contrary are made in the service records.
34. Interruption in service : (1) Unless there are specific entries regarding break in service in the service record of the Government employee, all service from the date of entry to the date of retirement shall be treated as continuous - subject to the condition that in case if there is interruption in service of a period of more than three months, the entire interruption shall be disregarded while working out the qualifying service, interruption upto three months being treated as qualifying service.Page 14 of 23 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:21:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13000/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined (2) All unauthorised absences not regularised by grant of leave and all leave of any kind granted for a continuous period exceeding five years shall constitute a brake in service and shall be dealt with as per sub-rule (1)."
The plain reading of Rule 34(1) of the Pension Rules, 2002 suggests that unless there is any specific entry as regards break in service in the service record of the Government employee, all service from the date of entry to the date of retirement shall be treated as continuous. Even interruption of service upto 3 months requires to be treated as qualifying service. In the present case, there is hardly 6 days interruption in service between period 01.10.1971 till 06.10.1971.
[7.5] The service book, as observed hereinabove, would not remotely record the break in service and no such entry is found in it. No adverse legal presumption can be drawn in regards to break in service unless service record of the Government employee maintained by respondents - authorities would suggest the same. Likewise, even though deceased employee relieved from his previous service, but except putting such entry, there Page 15 of 23 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:21:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13000/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined was no closure of service book due to such removal, rather service book continued with other entries of subsequent appointment etc., would draw inference that there was no intention on part of respondent-State to forfeit earlier service.
[7.6] In view of the aforesaid, when service record of deceased employee would indicate that respondents authorities have not treated any break in service of deceased employee, at least not recorded in the service book, non-consideration of his service between 11.03.1965 to 30.09.1971 would nothing but serious error of law on the part of the respondents, thereby, denied legitimate right of deceased employee / petitioner, to receive pension / family pension respectively. [7.7] Thus, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and having found that there is no break in service but only interruption of service of deceased employee i.e. only period of 6 days, in view of Rule 34(1) of the Pension Rules, 2002, the Page 16 of 23 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:21:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13000/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined services rendered by the deceased employee between 11.03.1965 to 30.09.1971 requires to be considered by the respondent - authority as qualifying service and so also, period between 01.10.1971 to 06.10.1971 having interruption in service shall be treated as qualifying service.
[7.8] So, while calculating the pensionary benefits of deceased employee and so also granting family pension to petitioner, respondents - authorities concerned require to consider qualifying service for the period between 11.03.1965 till 31.12.1999. Point No. I answered accordingly.
Point No.II [8] The aforesaid G.R. dated 16.08.1994 issued by the respondent - State would indicate that the employee would entitle to receive higher grade pay-scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. To get 1 st higher grade pay-scale, employee concerned requires to complete 9 years of service either on 01.06.1987 or thereafter. Likewise, to receive 2 nd & 3rd higher grade Page 17 of 23 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:21:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13000/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined pay-scales, employee concerned requires to complete further 9 years of service each. Nowhere in aforesaid G.R. would suggest that to get such higher grade pay-scale, employee/s require/s to clear any departmental examination.
[8.1] It cannot be disputed, even if considered his service with Superintendent of Land Record at Vadodara from 07.10.1971, deceased employee completed 9 years of service on 01.06.1987, and further completed 9 years of service from 01.06.1987 on 01.106.1996, then after retired from service on 31.12.1999.
[8.2] The respondents authorities appear to have completely misconstrued and misread the aforesaid G.R. when denied 1st and 2nd higher grade pay-scales to the deceased employee on the ground that having not cleared departmental examination, deceased employee not entitled to receive any higher grade pay-scale. The aforesaid G.R. only suggests that to get promotion, employee requires to clear departmental examination Page 18 of 23 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:21:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13000/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined [see - clause - 3 (5) of said G.R.]. But, so far as to receive higher grade pay-scale is concerned, as such, there is no requirement or any such condition put on the shoulder of employee. True, age relaxation given to those employees who surpassed the age of 45 years as on 05.07.1991, only those employees need not to appear in departmental examination to get any promotion. As such issue of promotion not agitated by petitioner in this petition, rather not in dispute, and therefore, this Court would not like to go further into such arena.
[8.3] Nevertheless, it is very much clear from the bare reading of the aforesaid G.R. that on completion of 9 years of service on 01.06.1987, deceased employee entitled to receive 1st higher grade pay-scale and further completed 9 years of service thereafter i.e. 01.06.1996, entitled to receive 2nd higher grade pay-scale. When deceased employee retired from service on 31.12.1999, thus, in view of aforesaid, entitled to receive 1 st & 2nd higher grade pay scale.
Page 19 of 23 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:21:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13000/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined [8.4] Having observed hereinabove and fact remains that respondents authorities have denied such higher grade pay-scales to deceased employee on completely wrong premise as deceased employee not cleared departmental examination then, such decision is erroneous, perverse, arbitrary and contrary to its aforesaid G.R. issued by the State. When the action of respondent authority is found to be arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and legitimate right of deceased employee to receive higher grade pay-scales denied by the respondents authorities, this Court requires to step into and also to interfere with the arbitrary action of respondents authorities. [8.5] According to my view, deceased employee entitled to receive 1st and 2nd higher grade pay-scales on completion of service on 01.06.1987 and 01.06.1996 respectively and having not granted such benefits by respondents authorities, violated fundamental right of the deceased employee. Point No.II answered accordingly. Page 20 of 23 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:21:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13000/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined CONCLUSION.
[9] The upshot of the aforesaid observations, discussion and reasons, following conclusion requires to be drawn.
[9.1] The respondents authorities have committed serious error in law by not considering the qualifying service of deceased employee from 11.03.1965 to 31.12.1999 as there is no specific entry regarding break in the service in the service record of the deceased employee.
[9.2] The interruption of service of deceased employee between 01.10.1971 to 06.10.1971 be treated as qualifying service as per Rule 34 (1) of the Pension Rules, 2002.
[9.3] The deceased employee is entitled to receive 1st and 2nd higher grade pay-scales on completion of 9 years and 18 years of service on 01.06.1987 and 01.06.1996 respectively.
Page 21 of 23 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:21:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13000/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined [9.4] The deceased employee and petitioner respectively are entitled to receive aforesaid benefits from the respondents.
[10] The respondents authorities are directed to first give effect of 1st and 2nd higher grade pay-scales to deceased employee and calculate and pay all consequential benefits flowing therefrom to petitioner on or before 28th February, 2026, meaning thereby, arrears of amount for said benefits be paid to the petitioner on or before 28th February, 2026.
[10.1] The respondents authorities herein, after giving effect of 1st and 2nd higher grade pay-scales (as aforesaid in the pay of the deceased employee) and so also, considering qualifying service of deceased employee for a period between 11.03.1965 till 31.12.1999, are directed to re-calculate the pension amount and release the arrears of such pension amount in favour of the petitioner on or before 28th February, 2026 and thereafter, pay her regular family pension on that basis. Page 22 of 23 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:21:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13000/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined [11] It is made clear that if respondents failed to comply with the aforesaid directions on or before 28 th February, 2026, petitioner is entitled to receive all the aforesaid benefits with 9% interest from 01.03.2026 from the respondents till its realization. It would also be open for the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings against the erring Officer for non-compliance of this order. [12] In view of the foregoing conclusion, the present Writ Petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J.) Lalji Desai Page 23 of 23 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Nov 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 21:21:54 IST 2025