[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat Through Secretary ... vs Ramkundiben Wd/O Hirabhai Malivad on 8 December, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1285/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1285 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 60 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1285 of 2025
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
FOREST & ORS.
Versus
RAMKUNDIBEN WD/O HIRABHAI MALIVAD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
PRABHATSINH J PARMAR(7996) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 08/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned Assistant Government
Pleader Ms. Shruti Dhruve for the
appellants.
2. By this appeal under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent Act, the appellants
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1285/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
original respondents have challenged the
judgment and order dated 03.02.2025 passed
by the learned Single Judge allowing the
petition for family pension to the
respondent-original petitioner.
3. Brief facts of the case are that
husband of the respondent late Shri
Hirabhai Malivad was employed as daily
wager Class-IV employee with the
appellants. Husband of the respondent
expired on 19.06.2010 during the service
period and therefore, respondent made a
representation dated 12.07.2016 requesting
to give pension. Respondent also preferred
Special Civil Application No.15308 of 2016
before this Court, wherein this Court vide
order dated 19.09.2019 directed the
appellants to examine the case of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1285/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
husband of the respondent for pension.
4. When the case of the respondent was
not examined by the appellants, the
respondent sent notice dated 21.03.2020 to
the appellants seeking compliance of the
order.
5. Appellants vide letter dated
03.07.2020 replied to the respondent
stating that the respondent was not
entitled for pension giving the reason
that respondent has not completed 10 years
of service.
6. The respondent thereafter made
representation dated 30.07.2020 to
reconsider the decision of the appellant
dated 03.07.2020 denying the benefit of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1285/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
pension to the respondent.
7. The appellant vide reply dated
11.08.2020 reiterated its earlier stand.
8. Being aggrieved by the said reply, the
respondent preferred Special Civil
Application No.60 of 2021 before this
Court. Learned Single Judge vide impugned
order dated 03.02.2025 allowed the
petition and directed the appellants
herein to calculate the amount of family
pension from the date on which the husband
of the respondent died and to pay the same
to the respondent as per his eligibility
within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of the order by taking
into consideration the facts in respect of
similarly situated person.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1285/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
9. Being aggrieved by the order passed by
learned Single Judge, the appellant State
has preferred the present appeal.
10. It is the case of the appellants that
the husband of the respondent - original
petitioner did not complete 10 years of
continuous service as he has worked for
less than 300 days from the year 1991-1992
to 2004-2005 and therefore, the respondent
was not entitled to the family pension.
11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader
Ms. Shruti Dhruve appearing for the
appellants invited the attention of the
Court to the chart of number of days
worked by the husband of the respondent
which is placed on record at page 50 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1285/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
the paper book which reads as under:
તારીજ
રોજમદારની વિ ગત દર્શાા તુ પત્રક
રોજમદારનું નામઃ- શ્રી હિ રકાભાઈ મખલાભાઈ માલી ાડ જન્મ તારીખઃ- ૦૧/૦૬/૬૮
પ્રથમ કામ પર જોડાયા તારીખઃ- ૦૧/૦૪/૯૨ ર્શાૈક્ષવિ.ક લાયકાતઃ- ૫ પાસ
અ.નં. ખાતામાં દાખલ તારીખથી કુ લ રોજ કામગીરીની કામનું સ્થળ હિદ સોની રીમાકસ
ર્ષ ગ. ું ર્ષ ાઈઝ વિ ગત સંખ્યા
તારીજ
૧ ૪-૧૯૯૨ ૩-૧૯૯૩ ૩૦૦ પત્રક નંબર-૫ પત્રક નંબર-૫ ૩૦૦
મુજબ મુજબ
૨ ૪-૧૯૯૩ ૩-૧૯૯૪ ૨૬૪ પત્રક નંબર-૫ પત્રક નંબર-૫ ૨૬૪
મુજબ મુજબ
૩ ૪-૧૯૯૪ ૩-૧૯૯૫ ૨૮૨ પત્રક નંબર-૫ પત્રક નંબર-૫ ૨૮૨
મુજબ મુજબ
૪ ૪-૧૯૯૫ ૩-૧૯૯૬ ૨૪૦ પત્રક નંબર-૫ પત્રક નંબર-૫ ૨૪૦
મુજબ મુજબ
૫ ૪-૧૯૯૬ ૩-૧૯૯૭ ૨૨૬ પત્રક નંબર-૫ પત્રક નંબર-૫ ૨૨૬
મુજબ મુજબ
૬ ૪-૧૯૯૭ ૩-૧૯૯૮ ૨૬૦ પત્રક નંબર-૫ પત્રક નંબર-૫ ૨૬૦
મુજબ મુજબ
૭ ૪-૧૯૯૮ ૩-૧૯૯૯ ૨૩૬ પત્રક નંબર-૫ પત્રક નંબર-૫ ૨૩૬
મુજબ મુજબ
૮ ૪-૧૯૯૯ ૩-૨૦૦૦ ૨૨૮ પત્રક નંબર-૫ પત્રક નંબર-૫ ૨૨૮
મુજબ મુજબ
૯ ૪-૨૦૦૦ ૩-૨૦૦૧ ૧૯૦ પત્રક નંબર-૫ પત્રક નંબર-૫ ૧૯૦
મુજબ મુજબ
૧૦ ૪-૨૦૦૧ ૩-૨૦૦૨ ૨૨૮ પત્રક નંબર-૫ પત્રક નંબર-૫ ૨૨૮
મુજબ મુજબ
૧૧ ૪-૨૦૦૨ ૩-૨૦૦૩ ૨૨૮ પત્રક નંબર-૫ પત્રક નંબર-૫ ૨૨૮
મુજબ મુજબ
૧૨ ૪-૨૦૦૩ ૩-૨૦૦૪ ૨૨૦ પત્રક નંબર-૫ પત્રક નંબર-૫ ૨૨૦
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1285/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
મુજબ મુજબ
૧૩ ૪-૨૦૦૪ ૩-૨૦૦૫ ૨૧૬ પત્રક નંબર-૫ પત્રક નંબર-૫ ૨૧૬
મુજબ મુજબ
૧૪ ૪-૨૦૦૫ ૩-૨૦૦૬ ૧૯૮ પત્રક નંબર-૫ પત્રક નંબર-૫ ૧૯૮
મુજબ મુજબ
૧૫ ૪-૨૦૦૬ ૩-૨૦૦૭ ૨૧૬ પત્રક નંબર-૫ પત્રક નંબર-૫ ૨૧૬
મુજબ મુજબ
૧૬ ૪-૨૦૦૭ ૩-૨૦૦૮ ૨૧૬ પત્રક નંબર-૫ પત્રક નંબર-૫ ૨૧૬
મુજબ મુજબ
૧૭ ૪-૨૦૦૮ ૩-૨૦૦૯ ૨૧૬ પત્રક નંબર-૫ પત્રક નંબર-૫ ૨૧૬
મુજબ મુજબ
૧૮ ૪-૨૦૦૯ ૩-૨૦૧૦ ૨૧૬ પત્રક નંબર-૫ પત્રક નંબર-૫ ૨૧૬
મુજબ મુજબ
૧૯ ૪-૨૦૧૦ ૪-૨૦૧૦ ૧૮ પત્રક નંબર-૫ પત્રક નંબર-૫ ૧૮
મુજબ મુજબ
12. Learned AGP Ms. Dhruve also referred
to the averments made in the affidavit-in-
reply filed in the petition which reads as
under:
"10. Further, as per GR dated
21.06.2019, a worker is eligible
for old pension scheme only if a
period of 10 years of continuous
service is completed on
01.04.2005. considering the
service of the husband of the
petitioner, he is not entitled to
receive this benefit as he had not
completed the 10 years of
continuous service as on the cut
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1285/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
off date. The GR has been attached
hereto and marked as Annexure R2.
11. The Government Resolution
dated 15.09.2014, clearly
specifies that in order to be
eligible to receive benefits of
the new pension scheme, a period
of five years or more continuous
service is to be completed on or
after 29.10.2010. The husband of
the petitioner passed away on
19.06.2010 and thus, considering
the eligibility, the same is not
entitled for new Government
pension scheme. The Government
Resolution dated 15.09.2014 is
annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE R 3."
13. Learned Single Judge after considering
the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of Workmen of American Express
International Banking Corporation v.
Management of American Express
International Banking Corporation reported
in 1985(4) SCC 71 held that to calculate
the number of working days, holidays like
Saturday,Sunday and public holidays are
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1285/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
days in a year and relying upon the said
decision, it was held as under :
"8. I have heard learned advocates
appearing for the respective
parties and perused the record.
Along with affidavit-in-reply, the
respondents have produced a chart
at page No.50, the chart indicates
that in the year 1992 husband of
the petitioner has worked for 300
days and from 1993 till 2009, the
petitioner has worked for more
than 200 days except in the year
2000 where the petitioner's
husband worked for 190 days. In
the year 2010, the husband of the
petitioner who died on 19.6.2010
had worked for 18 days but that is
not of much relevance for the
reason that the petitioner's
entire claim is based on the fact
that the petitioner has, for ten
continuous years, served for more
than 240 days, in view of decision
of American Express International
Banking Corporation (Supra) by
counting the Saturday, Sunday and
other public holidays as if the
petitioner has worked.
8.1 As the chart indicating the
petitioner's number of days work
does not indicate that whether the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1285/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
respondents have considered
Saturday, Sunday and public
Holidays or not, pursuant to a
query learned Assistant Government
Pleader Ms. Krina Calla, submitted
that in the above calculation only
actual number of working days are
included and not total number of
days including Saturday, Sunday
and public Holidays are considered
while preparing the above chart.
8.2 If on the basis of chart
produced by the respondents even
fifty Sundays are added, then the
husband of the petitioner has
worked for more than 240 days as
the least number of days the
husband of the petitioner has
worked is 190 in the year 2000."
14. Learned Single Judge has also referred
to and relied upon the decision of
Division Bench of this Court in case of
Surendranagar Panchayat and others v.
Umarkhan Alikhan Malek and others (Order
dated 29.03.2016 in Letters Patent Appeal
No.2047 of 2004) rendered in similar
facts.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1285/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
15. The Learned Single Judge has rightly
not accepted the number of days worked out
by the appellant exclusive of holidays of
Saturday and Sunday and therefore, it is
rightly held that the husband of the
respondent worked for more than 240 days
as per the chart reproduced above.
16. On perusal of the chart, it is clear
that the husband of the respondent worked
for more than 240 days by including
Saturday and Sunday in each year.
Therefore, it cannot be said that
respondent workman has not worked for 10
continuous years so as to deprive the
benefits of pension/family pension to the
respondent.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1285/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
17. Learned AGP Ms. Dhruve also referred
to and relied upon the Government
Resolution dated 15.09.2014 at Annexure-R/
3 (page-59 of the paper book) however,
said Government Resolution is issued after
the death of husband of the respondent as
averred in para 11 reproduced here-in-
above and therefore, in our opinion, same
is not applicable to the facts of the
case.
18. In view of foregoing reasons, appeal
is dismissed. Civil Application also
stands disposed of accordingly.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
RAGHUNATH R NAIR
