Bharat Bhagavatlal Bhatt vs State Of Gujarat
2025 Latest Caselaw 872 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Bharat Bhagavatlal Bhatt vs State Of Gujarat on 14 July, 2025

Author: Nikhil S. Kariel

Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/SCA/26738/2022                                JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025

                                                                                                               undefined




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                        R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 26738 of 2022

                                                            With
                                      CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2024
                                      In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 26738 of 2022

                        FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
                        ==========================================================

                                      Approved for Reporting                 Yes           No

                        ==========================================================
                                                    BHARAT BHAGAVATLAL BHATT
                                                              Versus
                                                     STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                        ==========================================================
                        Appearance:
                        ULLASH N GOHIL(8357) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                        MS TANUSHREE SHRIMAL ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
                        Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4
                        NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 3
                        ==========================================================

                             CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                                                         Date : 14/07/2025

                                                         ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Ullash N. Gohil for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Tanushree Shrimal for the respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned AGP Ms. Shrimal waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 - State.

3. By way of this petition, the petitioner, who had been appointed as a Computer Operator with respondent No.3 - College vide order dated 02.03.1989 seeks grant of pension and other retiral benefits on account of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26738/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

the services put in by the petitioner with the institution.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Gohil would submit that in case of an identically situated employee, this Court had considered the submissions and had passed an order on 29.03.2022 in Special Civil Application No.10793 of 2015 and whereas he would submit that the similar order may be passed in the present petition also.

5. To a pointed query by this Court, learned AGP could not point out any difference in case of the present petitioner and the petitioner before this Court in the above referred petition. Hence, to this Court, it would appear that all issues remaining same, the observations of this Court in the above petition, would hold the field. Hence, paras 2, 3, 4 and 5 being relevant for the present purpose, are quoted herein below for benefit:

"2. Learned Advocate Mr. Gohil, at the outset, would submit that the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Coram : Justice Biren Vaishnav) vide decision dated 07.03.2022 in Special Civil Application No. 14433 of 2020 and allied matter, has been pleased to decide the very selfsame issue that has been agitated in the present petition. Learned Advocate Mr. Gohil would submit that as such the issue raised in the present petition being no more res-integra, more particularly since the issue had been decided by the learned Co-ordinate Bench, and whereas the said decision having been confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court also, learned Advocate would submit that similar orders may be passed by this Court in the present petition.

3. Learned AGP Ms. M.D. Mehta for the respondent-State could not dispute the fact that the order passed by the learned Co-ordinate Bench was in a similar situation, where the facts were absolutely identical.

4. Having regard to the same, without dwelling much into the facts, this Court proposes to rely upon the Paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 of the aforesaid decision of the of the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The said paragraphs are reproduced hereinbelow for the benefit.

                                                                                                                                      NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/SCA/26738/2022                                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025

                                                                                                                                      undefined

"8. coordinate bench of this Court considering the identical issue by a decision dated 18.10.2019 rendered in Special Civil Application No.20185 of 2018 held as under:

"4. The petition and the prayers were contested by the respondents, in which it is inter alia stated in para-15 that the petitioner failed to pass the recruitment process which was advertised for more than one occasions and that his services throughout remained ad hoc in nature. It was sought to be contended that since service tenure was temporary and ad hoc in nature, it would not qualify for pension and retirement benefits.

5. In Bahadur Hoshi Kotwal vs. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No. 19042 of 2017 decided on 7.5.2019 similar issue came up for consideration. The claim of the petitioner for pension etc. was opposed on the ground that petitioner's services were ad hoc. 5.1 Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, deals with the qualifying service for the purpose of pension. This rule extracted in its relevant part, reads as under, "Rule-25. Qualifying Service : Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a Government employee, means and includes, -

(i) all service including service on probation rendered on a regular establishment in any capacity whether, temporary or permanent, interrupted or continuous but it shall not include - (a) service in non-pensionable establishment,

(b) service paid from contingencies,

(c) service rendered in daily rated establishment,

(d) actual periods of break in service if any, between spell of service,(e) service prior to resignation, removal or dismissal,

(f) service as an apprentice,

(g) service on fixed pay basis, and

(h) service on contract basis.

(ii) all service rendered in work charged establishment provided that the total service put in, as such is five years or more,

(iii) ..... to (ix) ....

5.2 Thus, Rule 25(i) of the Rules provides that qualifying service shall include all services including services rendered on probation. It also includes services rendered in any capacity whether temporary or permanent, whether interrupted or continuous. The qualifying service, but, would not include the service rendered in the non-pensionable establishment or service rendered in contingencies or service rendered in daily-rated establishment. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner could rightly emphasise the group of words "whether temporary or permanent, interrupted or continuous" from the language of the Rules to submit that the petitioner's services would be included as per the Rules, within the purview of qualifying service for pension. 5.3 In view of the above Rule-25 of Pension Rules 2002, temporary services are liable to be counted as pensionable. Even though the petitioner served as ad hoc for 30 years and 9 months, he was on the regular establishment entitled to get his services to be treated as pensionable. Rule 25 in terms says

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26738/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

that qualifying service for pension include even interpreted services. Therefore, short breaks of 26 days and 5 months during the tenure of the services of the petitioner, would be in no way impead in counting the services of the petitioner to qualify as pensionable services.

6. As a result of the above discussion, the petitioner has to be treated as entitled for grant of pensionary and retiral benefits such as gratuity, leave encashment and those admissible to him on the basis of services of 30 years and 9 months which would be treated as qualifying service for pension and retirement benefits. The respondents are directed to finalise the pension case of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the present order and pay to the petitioner pension regularly alongwith other retirement dues admissible and payable to him. The arrears which may arise to be paid shall be paid within further period of two months.

7. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted."

9. The above decision has now been confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.1109 of 2022, which reads as under:

"It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continues service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand. In the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in directing the State to pay pensionary benefits to the respondent who has retired after rendering more than 30 years service.

Hence, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

5. In view of the above, it is directed that the petitioner is treated to be entitled for grant of pensionary and retiral benefits such as gratuity, leave encashment and all other admissible benefits on the basis of the petitioner having rendered the services prior to the date of retirement which would be treated as qualifying services for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits. The respondents are directed to finalise the pension case of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order and the respondents shall also ensure that pension is paid to the petitioner regularly along with other retirement dues admissible and payable to him. The arrears of pension and other retiral dues shall be paid forthwith within the time limit of two months."

6. Having regard to the observations in above quoted portion, the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/26738/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025

undefined

following directions are passed:

(a) The respondents shall finalize the pension case of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.

(b) The respondent shall ensure that the pension is regularly paid to the petitioner along with other benefits as available. The arrears of the pension and the retiral benefits shall be paid within the above referred time limit of two months.

7. With this observation, the present petition stands disposed of as allowed. Rule is made absolute. The Civil Application also stands disposed of.

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) Y.N. VYAS