Gujarat High Court
Dr.Chenangara Gopalakrishnan vs The State Of Gujarat on 12 October, 2022
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
C/SCA/1526/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1526 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Sd/-
=============================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see NO
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the NO
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as NO
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
=============================================
DR.CHENANGARA GOPALAKRISHNAN
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR NIRAD D BUCH(4000) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MRS. BHAVINI N. BUCH(5403) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
(MRS VD NANAVATI)(1206) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR. DHAWAN JAYSWAL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 12/10/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India is filed with
C/SCA/1526/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2022
following prayers:
"(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ
in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction, commanding the Respondents to forthwith extend, and
continue to extend, benefits of Pension Scheme to the petitioner from
the date of retirement of the petitioner, and further be pleased to
command the Respondents to pay arrears of pension forthwith along
with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
retirement till its actual realization;
B) Your Lordships may be pleased to award such cost of this petition
as it may deem fit in the interest of justice;"
2. Essentially, the relief claimed is for permitting the petitioner to migrate
from Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme to General Provident
Fund (GPF) claiming pension scheme.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued that the case of the
petitioner deserves consideration as the appointment of the petitioner is
of the year 1991, which is subsequent to the date specified in the
Government Resolution. Beyond which, the services of the petitioner
would be covered for pension scheme. It is submitted that various
decisions have been taken by this Court in this regard and in the facts
identical to the present, case of such petitioners have been considered
and were held entitled to pension scheme.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the
decision of this Court in case of Sarla Achuthan v/s. State of Gujarat
and Others passed in Special Civil Application No.14365 of 2015 dated
12-01-2017 and also the decision of this Court in case of
Rameshchandran Balaraman v/s. State of Gujarat and others passed in
C/SCA/1526/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2022
Special Civil Application No.7570 of 2015 dated 12-07-2022 .
5. Learned Advocate for the respondent has opposed to the grant of
petition and submitted that the petitioner had retired in the year 2006
and the petition is filed in the year 2016 and therefore, after 10 years of
the petitioner having accepted the benefits under the CPF Scheme, the
petitioner cannot be permitted to take 'U' turn.
6. The respondent-University has also filed Affidavit in reply stating that
application for the petitioner for grant of pension was forwarded to the
Director of Higher Education, Gandhinagar. However, as the petitioner
has not exercised option for pension, as required under the Government
Resolution, the case was not considered. Moreover, it is stated that the
petitioner has been paid an amount of gratuity to the tune of
Rs.3,50,000/- at the time of his retirement.
7. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having
perused the documents on record, it appears that Government
Resolution dated 15th October, 1984 provides for considering Teaching
Staff, which was issued for the pension scheme for Teaching Staff in
Non-Government Affiliated Colleges and University, wherein Clause-4
provides that member of staff recruited on or after 1 st April, 1982 shall
be automatically governed by the pension scheme and such Staff will
not require to give option whether to continue in CPF or to continue in
the pension scheme.
8. This Court had an occasion to consider the similar issue in case of Sarla
Achuthan (supra) and on facts having found that the petitioner therein
was appointed in the year 1991, which was after the Government
Resolution dated 15th October, 1984, had held the petitioner to be
entitled for pension scheme. Similarly, in case of Rameshchandran
Balaraman (supra) considering the same clause, by treating
appointment of the petitioner to be subsequent to the Government
Resolution would be covered in the pension scheme regardless of
C/SCA/1526/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2022
option.
9. In the facts of the present case, it is evident that appointment order of
the petitioner, which is placed at Annexure-A and which is not disputed
by the respondent clearly indicates that the respondent-University had
given Appointment Memo on 18-03-1991 for the post of Reader in
Business Management in B.K. School of Business Management, which
was against the pay-scale with starting basic salary of Rs.3,700/- in the
grade of Rs.3700-125-4950-150-5700 plus Dearness Allowance. In the
appointment order itself, which was provided that the petitioner would
be entitled to other allowances and benefits of GPF, Gratuity and
pension, as may be admissible to him.
10. In view of the aforesaid, the petition stands partly allowed. Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. The
case of the petitioner deserves to be considered and it is held that the
petitioner is entitled to benefits of the pension scheme as per the
Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984. The case of the petitioner
therefore be considered as such and in case the petitioner has received
any benefit under the previous scheme under CPF, then it will be open
for the State Government to adjust and appropriate the benefit thus
received against the benefit due to receive as per the policy of the State
Government.
Sd/-
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
PARESH SOMPURA
