Gujarat High Court
Divya Maheshkumar Pandit vs Rajkot Urban Development Authority on 20 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20522/2019 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20522 of 2019
==========================================================
DIVYA MAHESHKUMAR PANDIT & ORS.
Versus
RAJKOT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JV JAPEE(358) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 20/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed for the following prayers:
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue the writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
and be pleased to direct the respondent authority to grant
the pensionary benefits to the petitioners at par with and in
accordance with the pensionery benefits given to the
employees of the Central Government and State Government
as per the recommendations of various central pay
commissions including the office memorandum dated
01.05.1987 issued by the Government of India as applicable
to the employees of the State Government and also the
employees of various authorities and corporations of the
State Government.
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondent
to take appropriate steps to grant pensionary benefits to the
petitioners pending the admission, hearing and final disposal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20522/2019 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
of this petition.
(C) xxxxx"
2. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
3. The petitioners herein have challenged the denial of the
pensionary benefits to the petitioners by unilaterally covering
the petitioners under the CPF Scheme, without giving an
option to the petitioners to opt for the pension scheme. The
petitioners also challenge the failure of the respondent to
implement the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and seek
directions to the respondents to grant the petitioners the
pensionary benefits that accrue from the date of their
retirement for which the petitioners are ready and willing to
deposit the amounts received under the CPF scheme towards
the Employer's share.
4. Learned advocate has relied on the order dated
23.7.2024 passed in Special Civil Application No.10269 of
2019 by Coordinate Bench, whereby by referring to the order
passed in Special Civil Application No. 13688 of 2018 and
allied matters, wherein, the group of petitions came to be
dismissed vide judgment and order dated 11.02.2020,
dismissed the petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20522/2019 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
5. The identical issue is the subject matter of this petition
and the petitioners are identically placed to the petitioners of
Special Civil Application No. 10269 of 2019.
6. At this stage, it will be fruitful to refer to paragraph
no.6, wherein paragraphs 16 to 18 of the said judgment and
order dated 11.02.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.
13688 of 2018 and allied matters is referred, which reads
thus:
"6. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to Pare-16 to 18
of the said judgment and order dated 11.02.2020 passed in
Special Civil Application No.13688 of 2018 and allied
matters, which read thus:
16. The case laws cited herein above indicate that the
petitioners at their very inception when were appointed had
accepted the condition that they would be governed by the
CPF scheme. All through their tenure they continued to be
so governed and even on retirement they accepted and
withdrew their CPF contributions. There was no pension
scheme made applicable to such employees. The judgments
relied upon by Mr.J.V.Japee are therefore out of context. In
the cases before this Court there were government
resolutions giving options of switching over to pension
scheme and the controversy was whether options at all were
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20522/2019 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
necessary. So is not the case on hand. There were no
resolutions extending the benefits of opting over to pension.
17. In Nakara's case (supra) it was never held that both
the pension retirees and the PF retirees form a
homogeneous class. The beneficiaries of CPF scheme cannot
claim parity. In the case of the petitioners they were CPF
retirees and their rights were fully crystallized on the date
of their retirement and on receipt of pensionary benefits and
there was therefore no continuing obligation thereafter and
they cannot be treated at par with living pensioners.
18. Once having opted to be governed by the CPF scheme
with open eyes and having enjoyed such benefits, it is not
open for the petitioners to turn around and claim the relief
of asking for pension. The petitioners when joined the
corporation as part of a relationship as employer and
employee accepted to be governed by the contractual
relationship and agreed to be governed by the service
conditions. Now after having retired it is not open and turn
around and claim a benefit which he/she was otherwise not
entitled to."
7. In light of the aforesaid, the petitioners herein being
identically placed to Special Civil Application No.10269 of
2019, present Petition is not entertained and dismissed
accordingly. Notice discharged.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
SRILATHA
