Gujarat High Court
Parmar Lallubhai Dhulabhai vs State Of Gujarat Through ... on 17 August, 2022
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/6254/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/08/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6254 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
PARMAR LALLUBHAI DHULABHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY,
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR.UTKARSH SHARMA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1, 4, 5, 6
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 17/08/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Utkarsh Sharma
learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on
behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 and
C/SCA/6254/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/08/2022
Mr.H.S.Munshaw learned advocate waives
service of notice of Rule on behalf of the
respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. With the consent of learned advocates for the
respective parties, the petition is taken up for
final hearing.
3. Prayer in this petition is for a direction that the
respondent authorities be directed to grant
pensionary benefits to the petitioners. The
service detail of each of the petitioners read as
under:
Sr. Petitioner Name Date of Designation Benefits Date of
No. joining s under retirement/s
17/10/1988 uperannuati
10 years on
1 Lallubhai Dhulabhai 21.01.1974 Rojamdar 01.04.2005 31.05.2011
Parmar
2 Lallubhai 21.07.1974 Rojamdar 01.04.2005 31.05.2011
Bapujibhai Parmar
3 Kabhaibhai 02.02.1980 Rojamdar 01.04.2000 30.06.2007
Galabhai Bariya
4 Bhaijibhai Kalubhai 21.01.1970 Rojamdar 01.04.1990 31.01.2007
Bariya
C/SCA/6254/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/08/2022
5 Solanki 21.12.1969 Rojamdar 01.01.2012 31.05.2013
Ranchodbhai
Maijibhai
4. It is the case of the petitioners that in light of the
decision of this Court in case of EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER PANCHAYAT (MAA & M)
DEPARTMENT and Another Versus
SAMUDABHAI JYOTIBHAI BHEDI & other
reported in 2017 (4) GLR 2952, the petitioners are
entitled to pensionary benefits counting their initial
date of appointment till their date of superannuation
in the respective years as is evident from the chart
reproduced herein above.
5. Mr.H.S.Munshaw learned counsel appearing for the
respondent nos.2 and 3 drawing the attention of the
Court to the affidavit in reply would submit that as
far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, he was
appointed as a daily wager on 21.01.1974. He
completed 5 years of service on 01.04.2000 and
completed 10 years of service on 01.04.2005. He
C/SCA/6254/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/08/2022
retired on superannuation on 31.05.2011. He
therefore completed six years of service from the
date of his regularisation i.e. from 01.04.2005. Same
analogy is drawn in case of each of the respective
other petitioners. As far as petitioner nos.3 and 4, it
is stated in the reply that they are employees of the
State Government.
6. More than once as also is reiterated in case of
SAMUDABHAI JYOTIBHAI BHEDI (supra) that
for the purposes of computing pensionary benefits,
the initial date of appointment is to be taken is well
settled.
7. It is accordingly held that the petitioners shall be
entitled to the benefits of pension and other terminal
benefits, inasmuch as, taking their initial date of
joining of service, they have completed more than 10
years of service in light of the law laid down in case
of SAMUDABHAI JYOTIBHAI BHEDI (supra). It
C/SCA/6254/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/08/2022
is clarified that as far as the prayer of the petitioner
for leave encashment is concerned, keeping that
right open subject to the outcome of the proceedings
before the Supreme Court, the respondents are
directed to pay the amount of gratuity and pension
and other benefits counting the entire length of
service of the petitioner. The entire exercise shall
be carried out within a period of 12 weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.
8. Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
service is permitted.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
ANKIT SHAH
