Gujarat High Court
Kadia Jigisha Manubhai vs State Of Gujarat on 4 October, 2022
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
C/SCA/17730/2015 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17730 of 2015
==========================================================
KADIA JIGISHA MANUBHAI & 3 other(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 4 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SONAL D VYAS(999) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4 (Absent)
DARSHIT R BRAHMBHATT(8011) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
MS SURBHI BHATI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR RA MISHRA(481) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 04/10/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
is filed for following relief(s):-
"7(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this
petition.
(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue appropriate writ,
order or direction directing te respondents to sanction the
family pension as per the last pay receipt by the deceased
Manubhai Hargovinddas Kadia.
(C) Your Lordship may be pleased to direct the respondents
to pay the petitioner's gratuity, pay for Earn Leave for 415
leaves, group insurance benefit of ESI and compensation in
lieu of the appointment on compassionate basis, funeral
expenditure.
(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents
to pay the two installments of the benefit of 6th pay
commission."
C/SCA/17730/2015 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2022
2. Essentially, the relief prayed for is for pensionary and
retirement benefits of the deceased-employee of the Gram
Panchayat and who is now represented by the legal heirs of the
deceased-employee.
3. The case of the petitioner is based on the fact that the
deceased-employee was appointed on account of the requirement
on the post of Sanitary Inspector, which had fallen vacant on
account of death of the incumbent and as there was urgent
need, the proposal was moved before the District Development
Officer, who has, according to the petitioner, granted sanction
for such appointment, and thereafter, the petitioner had
continued to work for almost period of 21 years, and therefore,
he is entitled to all the pensionary benefits like any other
employee of the Gram-Panchayat. The stand taken by the
District Development Officer is to the extent that though due
process was followed in appointment of the petitioner and that
based on a misinterpretation of communication by the District
Development Officer, the appointment has been made.
4. Learned advocate for the D.D.O. has drawn attention of
this Court to the affidavit-in-reply to substantiate his argument
that the appointment of the petitioner was not a regular one, and
therefore, scapegoat arrangement, which was made despite there
being clear-cut direction by the D.D.O. Office, the step has been
taken by the Gram Panchayat at its own risk.
5. Learned advocate for the Gram-Panchayat referring to the
affidavit on behalf of the Gram-Panchayat has narrated the
circumstances under which the appointment was made,
however, has taken a stand that the Gram-Panchayat had
C/SCA/17730/2015 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2022
forwarded the representation after the death of the deceased-
employee on 04.05.2015 to the T.D.O., but the same was
rejected on the ground that the deceased-employee was not
entitled to receive any pension benefit.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned
advocates for the parties and having perused the documents on
redord, it appears that the requirement of appointing on the post
of Sanitary Inspector arose on account of death of the
incumbent, and thereafter, the process was made for appointing
the petitioner as Sanitary Inspector. However, the
communication dated 02.06.1992 on which the Gram-Panchayat
relies upon addressed by the D.D.O. to the Panchayat would
indicate that the approval was made for the purpose of
appointing an individual on the post of Sanitary Inspector by
way of deputation. Apparently, the Panchayat has understood
this communication dated 02.06.1992 to be prior approval for
appointment. The record of the Panchayat placed on record
would indicate that an order was passed regarding oral interview
before the Selection Committee and after that on 23.03.1994, the
order of appointment was made.
7. In the opinion of the Court, the appointment thus, made
does not appear to be inconsonance with the rules and
regulations. From the facts on record, it appears that there was
no procedure, which was adopted except for inviting the
petitioner for appearing before the Selection Committee for an
interview. This process, in the opinion of the Court, cannot be
termed to be due process for selection. This Court in LPA No.
1099 of 2016 passed in CAV Judgment on 27.01.2017, wherein
C/SCA/17730/2015 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2022
the same fact situation where the appointment was not in
accordance with rules and procedure had held that such
employee will not be entitled to any pensionary benefits. From
the facts on record, in the present case, it is evident from the
affidavit filed by the respondent-T.D.O., the resolution of the
Gram-Panachayat also would refer to an appointment of
Sanitary Inspector on the basis of deputation, and therefore, the
appointment cannot be supported by any due process
undertaken by the Panchayat.
8. In view of the aforesaid, no case is made out for holding
that the service of the deceased-employee was entitled for the
pension or pensionary benefits. However, this order will not
preclude from the respondents from considering the case of the
legal heirs of the deceased-employee for the purpose of
compensate compensation as per the policy of the State
Government more particularly, considering the long period of 21
years of service rendered by the deceased-employees.
With the aforesaid, present petition stands disposed of.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
GIRISH
