Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Babarbhai Mansukhbhai Vasava ... on 9 December, 2021
Bench: Aniruddha P. Mayee
C/LPA/1061/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/12/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1061 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15076 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1061 of 2021
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BABARBHAI MANSUKHBHAI VASAVA SINCE DECD. THROGH LEGAL
HEIR SURAJBEN WD/O BABARBHAI VASAVA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SOAHAM JOSHI AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H.VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 09/12/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE)
ORDER IN R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1061 of 2021
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the
order dated 10.12.2020 in Special Civil Application No.15076 of
2020.
2. The brief facts leading to the appeal are :-
2.1 The deceased husband of the respondent No.1 was
employed as Rojamdar in the office of the appellant No.2 with
effect from 29.06.1984. He put in his service continuously and
uninterruptedly till his death on 30.07.2016 after serving for 32
years. During his service, the deceased husband of the respondent
No.1 was extended the benefits of Government Resolution dated
C/LPA/1061/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/12/2021
17.10.1988 and was also made permanent pursuant to the said
government resolution.
2.2 After the death, the respondent No.1 was paid the
pension in the year in the year 2018. The pension was calculated
after deducting 12 years of service put in by the deceased husband
of respondent No.1. It is alleged that she was not paid full
pensionary benefit which was her legitimate right.
2.3 The respondent No.1 made a representation dated
27.08.2020 through the Union seeking full pensionary benefits. By
communication dated 09.09.2020, the appellant No.2 herein
informed the respondent No.1 that the respondent No.1 was not
entitled to the pension of full length of service. Further, respondent
No.1 was also declined the compensation in pursuance of
Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011.
2.4 Aggrieved, the respondent No.1 herein filed Special
Civil Application No.15076 of 2020 praying for the following
reliefs:-
"(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature
of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction,
(i) to hold and declare that
action on part of the respondents in not
making payment of pensionary benefits
to the petitioner by counting his entire
length of service from date of joining till
date of retirement as illegal, unjustified,
arbitrary and further be pleased to
direct the respondents to fix the pension
of the petitioner by counting his service
from date of joining until the date of
retirement and fix the pension
accordingly;
(ii) to hold and declare that
the petitioner shall be paid all other
C/LPA/1061/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/12/2021
benefits like Public Holidays, Transport
Allowance, Medical Allowance, Group
Insurance at part with the permanent
employees.
(iii) to hold and declare that
the petitioner is entitled to receive
financial assistance as per G. R. dated
05.07.2011.
(iv) to hold and declare that
petitioner is entitled to all other retiral
benefits including benefit of leave
encashment and be pleased to further
direct the respondents to pay amount of
leave encashment of leave standing in
the account of the petitioner;
(iii) to direct the respondents
to pay difference of pensionary benefits,
gratuity amount, leave encashment and
other benefits with 18% interest from
the date when it fell due;
(B) Pending the admission hearing and
final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may
be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately
re-fix the pension of the petitioner on the basis of his
total length of service;
(C) Any other and further relief or reliefs to
which this Hon'ble Court deemed fit, in the interest
of justice may kindly be granted;"
2.5 The appellants herein opposed the said Special Civil
Application.
2.6 By the impugned judgment and order dated
10.12.2020, the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ
petition of the respondent No.1 and directed the appellants herein
to extend the benefit of counting the services of her deceased
husband from the date of initial appointment till his retirement so
as to entail the benefit of revised family pension and leave
encashment to the petitioner.
C/LPA/1061/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/12/2021
2.7 Aggrieved, the appellants herein have preferred the
present Letters Patent Appeal.
3. Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned Assistant Government
Pleader submitted that in view of various government resolutions
and circulars, the deceased husband of the respondent No.1 was
not entitled to the pensionary benefits from the date of his initial
appointment and further no leave encashment was payable under
the government resolutions. He accordingly prayed that the Letters
Patent Appeal be allowed and the judgment of the learned Single
Judge be set aside.
4. After hearing the submissions of the learned AGP, when
this Court specifically put a question to him as to whether the
judgment of this Court in case of State of Gujarat and anr. vs.
Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas & Anr. reported in 2011 (2)
GLR 1290 and other three judgments relied upon by the
respondent No.1 and as referred to in the impugned judgment
herein had been set aside or the same were passed in the case of
same different set of employees and was the petitioner similarly
situated to those workmen who had been granted the benefit under
the said judgment, learned AGP could not dispute the legal position
and fairly stated that the judgments relied upon by the respondent
No.1 before the learned Single Judge and the reliance placed by
the learned Single Judge while granting the relief to the respondent
No.1 herein was in case of the similarly situated employees and it
had been implemented also.
5. In this conspectus of the matter, this Court is of the
opinion that there is no error in the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge and it has been correctly held that the
respondent No.1 is entitled to the benefits claimed by her on the
C/LPA/1061/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/12/2021
basis of the judgments referred to and relied upon. In the premises,
the present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. No order as to the
cost.
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
In view of dismissal of main Letters Patent Appeal, the Civil
Application for stay does not survive and stands disposed of.
(S.H.VORA, J)
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE,J)
cmk
