Gujarat High Court
J.G. Jadeja vs Vice-Chancellor- Sardar Krushinagar- ... on 19 January, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7027/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7027 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
=======================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be No
allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair No
copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial No
question of law as to the interpretation of the
Constitution of India or any order made
thereunder ?
=======================================
J.G. JADEJA
Versus
VICE-CHANCELLOR- SARDAR KRUSHINAGAR- DANTIWADA
AGRICULTURE & 2 other(s)
=======================================
Appearance:
JUHI M TALATI(7822) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS NIRALI SANDA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR MITUL K SHELAT(2419) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 19/01/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7027/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2024
undefined
1. By way of this petition under Article 14, 16 and 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following
reliefs.
"(a) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari
or writ in nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction
or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order
No.Sadakruyu / Reg. / A.2.5 / 14189 - 192 / 2007) dated 18.10.07
passed by Vice Chancellor (marked as Annexure F) of Sardar
Krushinagar, Dantiwada, Krushi University, Dist. Banaskantha and
against the petitioner's letter dated 25.09.07 marked as Annexure
E."
2. Short facts of the present petition are that the petitioner
was serving with respondent and has issued certificate for his
blot-less service and he served with respondent without any
grievance w.e.f. 01.06.1982 till date and during this period, the
petitioner has completed 240 days from the year of joining the
service. The petitioner continued in service w.e.f. 1993 to
30.07.2006 upto retirement with completion of 240 days in each
year. The petitioner had filed Special Civil Application No.22393
of 2007 before this Court which came to be disposed of without
any merits and respondent was directed to consider the case of
petitioner for pension benefit while considering the services
rendered by him in regular pay scale w.e.f. 16.5.1994 to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7027/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2024
undefined
30.07.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred an
application for the pensionary benefits, which came to be
rejected on 18.10.2007. Hence, this present petition is preferred.
3. Heard Ms.Juhi Talati, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mr.Mitul Shelat, learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.1 and Ms.Nirali Sanda, learned Assistant
Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2 and 3.
4. Ms.Talati, learned counsel has submitted that the
respondent has not considered the length of service for 24 years
and this Hon'ble Court has rightly appreciated the service period
of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for
pension and his long service is to be considered as qualifying
service. She has submitted that as per the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Agricultural
University Vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar and others reported in
(2001) 3 SCC 574, the service of the petitioner came to be
regularized along with other 46 employees. It is submitted that
on reaching the superannuation of the petitioner, the respondent
has paid other retirement benefits including gratuity, provident
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7027/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2024
undefined
fund etc and not consider the case of the petitioner for
pensionary benefit. She has submitted that the petitioner
preferred Special Civil Application No.22353 of 2007 which came
to be decided ex-parte by this Court without issuing any notice to
the respondent and directed the respondent to consider the case
of the petitioner for pension considering the length of service
and consider that period as qualified service of the petitioner.
She has submitted that the petitioner was working continuously
and from 1994 his service is required to be taken into
consideration for regularization. She has submitted that the
impugned order passed by respondent be quashed and set
aside.
4.1 In support of her submissions, Ms.Talati, learned counsel
has relied upon the following decisions.
(1) Mehta Balwantrai Mangalal and others Vs. District Panchayat
rendered in Special Civil Application No.2844 of 2004 dated
29.09.2006 (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice J. B. Pardiwala).
(2) Devjibhai Bhikhabhai Makwana Vs. District Panchayat Bhavnagar
and others rendered in Special Civil Application No.13353 of 2004
dated 19.09.2016 (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice J. B. Pardiwala).
(3) Kankuben Amrabhai Vadher Vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Special
Civil Application No.12531 of 2014 dated 02.03.2016 (Coram:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice J. B. Pardiwala).
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7027/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2024
undefined
(4) State of Gujarat and others Vs. PWD Employees Union and others
rendered in Civil Appeal Nos.5321-5322 of 2013 dated 09.07.2013.
(5) Rauma Umar Dawood Vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Civil
Application No.13845 of 2010 dated 28.06.2011 (Coram: Hon'ble
Mr.Justice H. K. Rathod).
5. Mr.Shelat, learned advocate appearing for respondent no.1
has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a daily wager
in the University against the contingency fund. While relying
upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Gujarat Agricultural University (supra), Mr.Shelat, learned
counsel has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
framed a scheme for regularization of various workmen
employed in the University. He has submitted that in accordance
with the said scheme, the petitioner was regularized in service
w.e.f. 01.04.2002 and he accepted his appointment pursuant to
the scheme and withdrew the petition being Special Civil
Application No.6395 of 1994 instituted by him seeking
regularization of service. He has submitted that the grant of
pension is governed by the Gujarat Agricultural University
Employees Pension Rules and accordingly, service rendered as a
daily wager and paid from contingencies are not treated as
qualifying services to entitle the employee to seek pension and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7027/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2024
undefined
that the petitioner is neither qualifying for service nor in
pensionable service. He has submitted that the petitioner is not
eligible for grant of pension and respondent is bona fide in
accordance with the rules and in accordance with law. He has
submitted that in the present petition, the petitioner does not
have any fundamental right to seek pension from the respondent
authority. He has submitted that the petitioner was aware about
the terms and conditions which were part of his regularizing
service and he came to be regularized from 01.04.2002 and he
reached at the age of superannuation on 31.07.2006, therefore,
the Rules governing the respondent - University for pension
qualifying service shall be of ten years or more. Mr.Shelat,
learned counsel has relied upon the decision in the case of
Union of India Vs. G. R. Rama Krisha reported in (2013) 12
SCC 582.
6. The respondent - University has filed affidavit-in-reply and
objected the petition mainly on the ground that as per the Act
more particularly Rules framed thereunder, the qualifying service
shall be of ten years or more. The relevant Rule/s of Chapter IV
Qualifying Service, Pensionable Pay, Amount of Pension etc reads
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7027/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2024
undefined
as under:-
"13.1 An employee retiring after completing qualifying service of
less than ten years on superannuation, retiring, invalid, or
compensatory pension shall not be entitled to any pension under
these rules."
7. This Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice H. K. Rathod) has,
while disposing of Special Civil Application No.22393 of 2007, has
observed in paragraph no.3 as under:-
"3. Therefore, it is directed to the respondent university to
consider the case of petitioner for pension benefit while considering
the services rendered by the petitioner in regular pay scale w.e.f.
16.5.94 to 30.7.2006 and then to pass appropriate reasoned order
in accordance with law within the period of two months from the
date of receipt of copy of this order and to communicate decision to
the petitioner immediately thereafter."
8. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of both
the sides and the decisions cited at the Bar as well as materials
placed on record and the impugned order, it appears that the
private respondents have filed the reference alleging that their
services came to be terminated by the employer without
following due procedure under the I. D. Act. It also appears that
the petitioner was appointed as daily wager watchman in the
University and paid salary from the contingency fund and as per
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7027/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2024
undefined
Gujarat Agriculture University (supra), the petitioner was
regularized in service. It is relevant to note that it is an admitted
fact that the service of the petitioner is regularized w.e.f.
01.01.2001 by the official order along with other 46 persons and
prior thereto his service was purely temporary and, therefore,
the University has not considered the case of the petitioner for
pensionary benefits. It is also an admitted fact that on earlier
occasion, the petitioner had approached this Court twice and this
Court has neither considered the case of the petitioner nor
issued any mandate to the respondent - University to consider
the case of the petitioner as permanent employee from 1996
instead of 2006. Therefore, now the petitioner cannot claim for
permanent employee and the pensionary benefits on the basis of
the earlier service put up by him from 1994 to 2001 and since
the University has its own independent rules and regulation and
as per the rules, the minimum qualifying service is of ten years
prior to the date of retirement which is not completed by the
petitioner. It also appears that the service rendered as a daily
wager and paid him salary from the contingencies fund are not
treated as qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pension.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7027/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2024
undefined
9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for
claim of pensionary benefits as he has not completed the
services of ten years. Therefore, the petition is devoid of merits
and the same is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, the
petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any,
granted earlier shall stand vacated forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
