Gujarat High Court
Modi Hemantkumar Ramanlal vs Sanchalak, Jivanbharati Mandal, Surat ... on 28 June, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7448/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7448 of 2024
==========================================================
MODI HEMANTKUMAR RAMANLAL
Versus
SANCHALAK, JIVANBHARATI MANDAL, SURAT SANCHALIT SHREE R D
GHAEL JIVANBHARATI MADHYAMIK VIDHYALAY & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VH DESAI(298) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MS TANUSHREE SHRIMAL, AGP for RESPONDENT NO.3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 28/06/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Present Special Civil Application impugns the judgment
and order dated 25.4.2017 passed in Appeal No.1338 of 2014 by
the Gujarat Educational Institutional Service Tribunal,
Ahmedabad and order dated 25.7.2022 in Review Application
No.13 of 2017 passed by the said Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner
came to be appointed as Assistant Teacher in the RSM
PunaVALA Sarvajanik Experimental School, Surat on 7.7.1990.
The said school was Grant-in-Aid school and the appointment
came to be approved by the District Education Officer.
Thereafter, due to the family circumstances, the petitioner
tendered his resignation from the said post on 22.11.2006. That
thereafter, pursuant to the advertisement dated 1.2.2008, the
petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Teacher and came to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7448/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
be appointed on 7.10.2008 in the respondent No.2 school. The
petitioner, thereafter, has superannuated on 31.7.2022.
Accordingly, the petitioner came to be paid the retiral dues. It is
the case of the petitioner that counting the earlier service, the
petitioner has put in total 32 years and 24 days of service.
Learned counsel submits that the respondent No.3 thereafter
refused the pay fixation of the petitioner and also refused to
condone the break in service of the petitioner for the purposes
of pension. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Appeal No.1338
of 2014 (old Appeal No.27 of 2012) before the Gujarat
Educational Institution Services Tribunal for condonation of
break in service for the purposes of pension and other benefits.
By order dated 25.4.2017, the learned Tribunal was pleased to
dismiss the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that break in
service between two appointments of the petitioner was 22
months and that as per Government Resolution dated 9.3.1998
passed by the Education Department, break in service should
not exceed 15 months. It was held that the rejection by the
District Education Officer was as per the said Government
Resolution. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Review
Application No.13 of 2017. The said Review Application also
came to be dismissed. Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred
the present Special Civil Application.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that despite
putting in more than 32 years of service, the petitioner has not
been given the full benefit of pension. Learned counsel submits
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7448/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
that the great financial loss has been caused to the petitioner.
Learned counsel submits that the authorities ought to have
condoned the break in service and sympathetic view ought to
have been taken by the authorities. Learned counsel submits
that even though the Government Resolution states that the
break in service between two services should not exceed 15
months, but in the present case, the petitioner has severe family
issues and, therefore, the authorities ought to have considered
the same.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal
perusal of the Government Resolution dated 2.8.1985 of the
Education Department stipulates, for the teaching staff in Non-
Government Secondary School Pension Scheme, the
condonation of break in service to count the length of service
for pension. As per the said Government Resolution, six breaks
are admissible for condonation, out of which four breaks are on
account of the resignation of the service. The said Government
Resolution further provides that total period of six weeks should
not exceed two years and in any case, any one break at a given
time should not exceed 15 months duration. In the present case,
it is an admitted position that break in service between the two
appointments of the petitioner was 1 year and 10 months, i.e. 22
months. In view thereof, the District Education Officer could not
have condoned the break in service since the same exceeded 15
months. The learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the
contentions as well as the relevant Government Resolutions in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7448/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
force. No infirmity is pointed out in the impugned orders. The
present petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly,
DISMISSED. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
OMKAR
