Chandrasinh Ramsinh Bariya vs State Of Gujarat
2022 Latest Caselaw 5036 Guj

     C/SCA/8477/2019                             JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2022




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8477 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 ?

==========================================================
                       CHANDRASINH RAMSINH BARIYA
                                 Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CB DASTOOR(238) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. UTKARSH SHARMA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                             Date : 09/06/2022

                            ORAL JUDGMENT

1 Heard Mr.C.B.Dastoor, learned advocate for the petitioner and

Mr.Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State

- respondent.

       C/SCA/8477/2019                                JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2022



2        Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP,

waives service of rule on behalf of the State - respondent. With consent

of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is

taken up for final hearing today.

3 By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction that the past services of the

petitioner for the period from 1991-92 be taken into consideration for the

purposes of calculating pensionary benefits from his date of

superannuation on 31.08.2018.

4 Brief facts would indicate that the petitioner was initially appointed

as a daily wager from 01.04.1992. It is his case that he was thereafter

transferred to another division with effect from 01.04.1999. The services

rendered from 1992-1999 is not considered for extending the benefits of

pension.

4.1 The case of the respondents is that the petitioner joined service

from 01.04.1999. The benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 were

extended to the petitioner by an order dated 23.01.2015. The case of the

respondents is that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of State of Gujarat vs. P.W.D Employees Union, he having

rendered 11 years of service from 01.04.1999, considering the Resolution

C/SCA/8477/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2022

dated 15.09.2014 his pay fixation has to be done based on the number of

days of service rendered in each year. That he is not entitled to the Old

Pension Scheme because he did not complete ten years on, or before,

2005 taking 1999 as the date of appointment.

5 Mr.Dastoor, learned advocate for the petitioner, has drawn the

attention of the Court to the tabular chart at page 50 filed with the

rejoinder which indicates that right from the year 1990/91, till the year

1997-1998, the petitioner has rendered 240 days of service in each year.

6 Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels

appearing for the respective parties and considering the decision of the

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Executive Engineer (Maa &

M) Department vs. Samudabhai Jyotibhai Bhedi., reported in 2017 (4)

GLR 2952, the stand of the respondent that since his appointment was

counted from the year 1999, he did not complete ten years of service prior

to 2005 needs to be re-considered in light of the fact that his initial date of

appointment needs to be taken as 01.04.1992 and therefore, admittedly,

he would complete more than ten years of service before the cut off date

on 01.04.2005.

7      Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the case of





         C/SCA/8477/2019                            JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2022

the petitioner for extending the benefits in light of the decision in the case

of Samudabhai Bhedi (supra), within a period of eight weeks from the

date of receipt of copy of this order. The petition is allowed, accordingly.

Rule is made absolute to the above extent.

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) Bimal