A division judge bench of the Justice A.J. Desai and Mauna M. Bhatt has held that even though the employee might have worked as ad hoc employee, his services as ad hoc employee is required to be considered with qualifying services as per Rule 25 of Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred as “Rules’).
Facts:
The relevant facts of the case are that The present appellant was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Government Secondary School on 28.8.1978. Thereafter, he was appointed as ad hoc Principal with DIET on 9.8.1997 and he joined on the said post on 12.8.1997 and continued as ad hoc Principal upto 30.6.2014 (till his retirement). The petitioner therefore requested the authority to grant pensionary benefits treating his service as continuous service from 28.8. 1978 to 30.6.2014 including the period for which he has worked as ad hoc Principal. The authority relying upon the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred as “Rules’), refused the same.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that it is undisputed fact that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Government Secondary School in the year 1978, and after 1997 continued to work as ad hoc principal for around 16 years and 10 months and retired from the service on superannuation on 30.6.2014. The authority by granting pensionary benefits and other benefits treated his services from 1978 to 1997 relying upon Rule 25 of the said Rules. It is pertinent to note that this issue about treating the ad hoc services for qualifying services has been decided by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application NO. 19042 of 2017 which was later reviewed by the division bench of this court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1748 of 2019. The decision of division bench of HC was challenged in SC by State of Gujarat by way of SLP (C) Diary No. 18929 of 2020, which was dismissed by Hon’ble Three Judges Bench on 29.10.2020. Therefore, in respect to rule 25 of the said rules it was held that “even though the employee might have worked as ad hoc employee, his services as ad hoc employee is required to be considered with qualifying services as per Rule 25” of Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred as “Rules’), refused the same.
Decision:
The present appeal was allowed and the order passed by learned Single Judge was quashed and set aside. The authorities were directed to treat the services of the appellant as ad hoc Principal from 12.8.1997 to 30.6.2014 as qualifying service and shall grant pensionary benefits with all consequential benefits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Case: M.B. PRAJAPATI vs STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 others
Citation: R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1149 of 2018
Coram: Justice A.J. Desai and Mauna M. Bhatt
Dated: 12.10.2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source : youtube.com
