Chhaganbhai Savabhai Chauhan vs Union Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 8 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Chhaganbhai Savabhai Chauhan vs Union Of India on 1 April, 2025

Author: Umesh A. Trivedi

Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi

                                                                                                        NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/SCA/17393/2024                             ORDER DATED: 01/04/2025

                                                                                                         undefined




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


                             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17393 of 2024


                       ======================================
                                   CHHAGANBHAI SAVABHAI CHAUHAN
                                                 Versus
                                       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                       ======================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR PH PATHAK(665) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MS REENA M KAMANI(6007) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MS SHREE P PATHAK(13126) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Respondent(s) No.
                       1,2,3
                       ======================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
                               and
                               HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
                               MANAVENDRANATH ROY


                                                      Date : 01/04/2025


                                                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI)

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal') dated 28.02.2022 in Original Application No.622 of 2016 whereby the claim of the petitioner for benefit of pension on the ground that he has completed 10 years of qualifying

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/17393/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2025

undefined

service on absorption in Group 'D" post came to be rejected.

2. As coming out from the petition and the submission made by learned advocate, Mr. P.H. Pathak, for the petitioner, he was first engaged as Gramin Dak Sevak (hereinafter referred to as 'GDS') since 1973. However, he was absorbed / regularly appointed in Group 'D' post from 05.12.1991. According to the case of the petitioner, he superannuated as regular Group 'D' employee on 31.01.2002. Thus, as per his claim, since he has completed 10 years of qualifying service on Group 'D' post, he is entitled for pension, and therefore, he has submitted that this petition be entertained and judgment and order passed by 'the tribunal' be set aside directing the respondents to pass an order of admissible pension since completion of his date of retirement.

3. As against that, Mr. Harsheel Shukla, Central Government Standing Counsel for respondents, submitted that admittedly the petitioner has not completed qualifying service of 10 years, as during that period, according to the petitioner himself, he was injured and he remained absent for 4 months and 20 days on medical ground, though claimed to be supported by medical certificate, it was not. It was further submitted that not only the petitioner preferred Review Application No.7 of 2022 in Original Application No.622 of 2016, he claims that period of absence from duty cannot be treated as dies non without issuance of specific order. He has also raised a contention in Review Application that he remained absent from duty for 4 months and 20 days when petitioner was injured while on duty and he submitted medical

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/17393/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2025

undefined

certificate for leave. He also claimed that no order whatsoever was passed, and therefore, aforesaid period cannot be treated as dies non and the said period is to be treated as medical leave or not it remained pending before higher authority till retirement of the applicant. However, according to the submission of the learned advocate for the respondents, even the Review Application also came to be rejected as the said claim of the petitioner was not supported with any medical certificate, as claimed by him, or any leave application tendered to the authority. Therefore, he has submitted that since the petitioner does not fulfill the qualifying service for the purpose of pension, he cannot be granted the same, that too, claimed after about nearly 14 years from the date of his retirement, and therefore, he has submitted that this petition is without any merit, and therefore, it be rejected.

4. Having gone through the petition and the documents annexed with the petition as also going through the impugned judgment and order rendered in Original Application as also in Review Application, it appears that the petitioner has failed to produce any documentary evidence either before 'the tribunal' or even before this Court, which would suggest that he was injured while on duty for which he has not tendered a medical certificate alongwith an application for medical leave. In absence thereof, even the respondents are not supposed to consider the same and either grant or refuse to grant the said medical leave. Not only that, such claim for pension is raised by the petitioner nearly after 14 years from the date of retirement, if at all on any ground, much less medical ground, the petitioner was fulfilling and entitled to the pension, he

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/17393/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2025

undefined

would immediately file his claim for pension in accordance with law. The very fact that for 14 years no such claim was ever made by the petitioner, he himself was satisfied that he does not fulfill the criteria for qualifying service for the purpose of pension. Admittedly, from his regular absorption in service on Group 'D' post from 05.12.1991 and considering his date of superannuation to be 31.12.2002, which is undisputed, may be 10 years service would be over, but admittedly as per the claim of the petitioner himself, he was on leave for 4 months and 20 days, which was never applied and granted, then his qualifying service would become 9 years, 8 months and 14 days, which is less than 10 years, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the pension.

5. Not only that, his service rendered as 'GDS' was not a pensionable service at all and as held by the Supreme Court, even service rendered as 'GDS' cannot be clubbed together for the purpose of pension when he is absorbed /regularly appointed in Group 'D' post of the respondents. Relying on the binding decision in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Gandiba Behera rendered in Civil Appeal No. 8497 of 2019 alongwith other connected Civil Appeals vide order dated 08.11.2019, 'the tribunal' has rightly considered the case of the petitioner and held that he is not entitled for pension as he does not fulfill the criteria of qualifying service for the purpose of pension.

6. We are in full agreement with the judgment and order passed by 'the tribunal' and the reasons assigned

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/17393/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2025

undefined

thereof, and therefore, we are unable to take a different view than the view taken by 'the tribunal'. Hence, this petition is without any merit and it is hereby rejected.

(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.)

(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.)

siji