Gujarat High Court

Kuwad Ramnikbhai Bachubhai vs State Of Gujarat on 19 September, 2025

                                                                                                                          NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/SCA/14736/2020                                              ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025

                                                                                                                           undefined




                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                       R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14736 of 2020
                                                           With
                                       R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15342 of 2020
                                                           With
                                       R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20459 of 2023
                                                           With
                                       R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21299 of 2023
                       ==========================================================
                                             KUWAD RAMNIKBHAI BACHUBHAI & ORS.
                                                          Versus
                                                 STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR TR MISHRA(483) for the Petitioner(s) No.
                       1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3,30,31,32,
                       33,34,35,36,37,38,39,4,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,5,50,51,52,53,6,7,8,9
                       MR. MUKESH T MISHRA(5900) for the Petitioner(s) No.
                       1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3,30,31,32,
                       33,34,35,36,37,38,39,4,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,5,50,51,52,53,6,7,8,9
                       MS POOJA ASHAR, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,5
                       NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3,4,6,7,8
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                                                               Date : 19/09/2025

                                                                ORAL ORDER

1. As common question of facts and law are involved

in all these petitions, at the request of learned advocates for

the parties, all these petitions are disposed of by this

common order.

2. These petitions are filed mainly praying to direct

the respondents to convert the petitioners from the benefit of

CPF to GPF for the purpose of pension and other

supernumerary benefits and other connected benefits.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/14736/2020 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

3. The main grievance agitated in the petitions is

that the petitioners are working in different categories and

have completed more than 20 years of service and most of

the petitioners will be retiring during the year 2021-2027;

that though they are working on permanent post and getting

all the benefits which the permanent employees are entitled,

the respondents have still not opened GPF Account and the

PF which is being deducted from monthly salary are

deposited in CPF account; that the petitioners have made

representations in this regard from time to time requesting to

convert the CPF into GPF and grant benefit of pension at

the time of retirement of the petitioners; that the respondents

have accepted Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and

also granted the benefits; that the petitioners are getting

wages as per recommendation of various Pay Commissions th th and the benefit of 6 and 7 Pay Commission, but the

respondents have not opened PF to enable the petitioners to

get the pensionary benefits. Hence, these petitions are filed.

4. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that

the petitioners are employees of Gujarat Water Supply and

Sewerage Board and as per the decision of the Board itself,

all the Rules and Regulations pertaining to employees

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/14736/2020 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

working under State shall be applicable to the employees of

the Board; the petitioners are given the benefits flowing from

the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988; they are being

given the benefits of pay scale as accepted by the State of

Gujarat; that various circulars and notifications of the

Government of Gujarat, the decision is taken to cover all the

employees in the respondent-Board with regard to all the

benefits, perks and perquisites available to the employees

working in the respondent board. Referring to various

judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, he

submitted that the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of

pension/GPF. He submitted that some retired employees

having accepted the benefit of CPF, has approached this

Court with a petition being Special Civil Application No.13400

of 2018 with other group of petitions, demanding benefit of pension, which was rejected by this Court vide order dated

11.2.2020, however, the same is not applicable to the facts of

the present case as the employees therein have approached

the Court after retirement and after having accepted the

benefit of CPF an the petitioners herein are working even

today and the PF amount, so deducted from the wages are

retained by the respondent-Board; that the petitioners are not

asked any option whether they want to remain under CPF or

wants to convert into GPF for the purpose of pension and

other pensionary benefits. He, therefore, submitted that these

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/14736/2020 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

petitions are required to be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Munshaw

appearing for respondent-Board has submitted that the

respondent no.2 is a Board constituted under the provisions

of the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act and

being statutory authority, is entitled to frame its own policy

qua service conditions of its employees as well as related

aspects of administration; the Board has introduced and is

implementing CPF Scheme for its employees that the Board

has not framed any pension scheme or has not adopted the

provisions of the Gujarat Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2002

for its employees; that the Rules framed for CPF Scheme are

sanctioned by the Government of Gujarat, Health and Family

Welfare Department on 6.8.1984 and the same are being implemented with effect from 1.1.1984; that the petitioners

are members of the CPF Scheme since their joining their

services and therefore they are not entitled for the reliefs

prayed for in these petitions and the petitions are required

to be dismissed. As regards the decision of this Court in

Special Civil Application Nos.13400 of 2018 and allied

matters, he submitted that the said petition was rejected by

this Court after examining the factual as well as the legal

aspects as well as catena of judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and the same is applicable to the facts of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/14736/2020 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

present case.

6. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties

and perused the material placed on record.

7. At the outset, a reference to the judgment dated

11.2.2020 passed in Special Civil Application Nos.13400 of

2018 and allied matters, wherein the employees of the

Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board had approached

this Court with the similar prayers which are prayed for in

these petitions. This Court, after recordings reasons in detail

has rejected the said petitions. Relevant paragraphs are

reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

"9. From the perusal of service details of the petitioners what is evident is that all the petitioners while joining service, accepted their appointments wherein it was clearly known to them that there was no pension scheme or that there were no resolutions in force giving them the benefit of an option to switch over to the pension scheme. Right through their tenure of service and till they retired they were governed under the CPF scheme. The petitioners accepted the benefits under the CPF scheme on retirement and more than 5 to 7 years after their retirement have raised a plea of being denied the benefit of being given the option of pension.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/14736/2020 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

15. In the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v. S.K.Sharma and others, reported in (2016) 9 SCC 206, the Supreme Court held as under:

"8. Lastly, it was contended on behalf of appellants that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition in 1992 or allowed substantial amendments in 1998 to permit claims made belatedly after decades and after superannuation from the service of the Corporation. Such claims should have been rejected on the ground of delay. In support of this plea reliance was placed upon judgment in the case of PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v. Mangal Singh and Ors.[1] In this case the respondents were still in service as the employees of the appellant Corporation when the Regulations of 1992 introduced a pension scheme but they did not exercise option for pension within the stipulated time. Moreover, they also availed of retiral benefits arising out of CPF and gratuity without any protest. This Court held that the respondents on account of failure on their part, could not claim benefit under the pension scheme. Particular reliance was placed upon the following observations at the end of paragraph 35;

".....On the receipt of CPF amount, the relationship between employee and employer ceases to exist without

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/14736/2020 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

leaving any further legal right or obligation qua each other."

Since most of the respondents in that case also had retired after serving for several years since the enforcement of Regulations of 1992 and had advanced claim for pension after accepting CPF etc., in para 52 this Court counted the delay of about eight years from the introduction of pension scheme in 1992 and held such delay was unreasonable. On that basis it has been urged on behalf of appellants that through amendment made in 1998 the respondents gave up their claim for pension under the Regulations of 1992 and instead claimed pensionary rights by indirectly mounting a challenge to the decision of the State Government evident from letter dated 16.10.1956, merging PEPSU Roadways with the Corporation. Their claim of being in the employment of State and to have suffered the effect of States Reorganization Act and merger of PEPSU State with the State of Punjab on 01.11.1956 was clearly a claim made after unusual delay of several decades and the High Court should not have condoned such delay.

9. In reply, Mr. S.K. Sharma learned counsel for the respondents advanced arguments in support of the impugned judgment. As per his submissions, even after the transfer of Roadways Department to the Corporation, there was legal necessity of issuing formal orders showing absorption of respondents as employees of Corporation under a valid

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/14736/2020 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

resolution of the Corporation. He relied upon findings of the High Court that there was no order or resolution for such absorption.

10. On behalf of respondents reliance was placed upon judgment in the case of Vice Chancellor, Utkal University & Ors. v. S.K. Ghosh & Ors.[2], to support the proposition that a corporate body like University acts through formal resolution arrived at in a proper manner by the competent body. The facts of this case were entirely different. The appellant before this Court was Vice-Chancellor of a University who was aggrieved by the High Court judgment interfering with the cancellation of an examination through resolutions of the University Syndicate. The High Court invalidated the resolution for want of proper notice vide agenda for the meeting as well as lack of justification for cancellation of the examination. This Court reversed the judgment of the High Court on both counts. The ratio of the judgment does not help the respondents.

11. Respondents next relied upon judgment in the case of State of Punjab v. Nirmal Singh.[3] In this case State of Punjab was aggrieved by impugned judgment of the High Court whereby minor punishment imposed upon Nirmal Singh was set aside. This Court allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment of the High Court on a finding that there was no requirement under the rule to grant a personal

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/14736/2020 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

hearing for imposition of a minor penalty and that the High Court had erred in treating the order of the competent authority as a non-speaking order. This case also is not relevant for deciding the controversy at hand.

12. To meet the allegation of delay, reliance was placed upon S.R. Bhanrale v. Union of India and Ors. [4] The appellant in that case retired as an officer in the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India and received pension immediately on retirement. For no good reasons his other retiral benefits and claims remained unsettled in spite of several representations. After serving the notice under Section 80 CPC and approximately after three years he moved the Central Administrative Tribunal. While the matter was pending with this Court, upon directions of the Department, the appellant was paid some of the benefits. At the stage of final hearing, this Court considered the circumstances and observed that in the facts of the case the Union of India was not justified in raising the bar of limitation against the dues of the appellant. It cannot be claimed by way of general rule simply on the basis of aforesaid judgment that in all cases of claim for pension, the plea of delay or limitation cannot be considered by a writ court. Only where the retiral benefits have been wrongly withheld and not paid despite numerous representations and as observed in para 4 of the aforesaid judgment the delay is not of decade or so the Court may

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/14736/2020 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

not appreciate a plea of limitation raised by the Government.

13. In the present case admission or declaration made by the Corporation on 30.11.1956 through Order no. 61 that services of the respondents, i.e., of all temporary employees stood transferred to the Corporation with effect from 16.10.1956 and shall be governed by the new terms and conditions as and when approved by the Corporation was within the knowledge of the respondents and they accepted such orders of the Government and the Corporation from 1956 till their retirement and even thereafter till the enforcement of Regulations of 1992 which led to filing of writ petition by them in 1992. Clearly the respondents acquiesced to the entire situation and accepted their status as employees of the Corporation leading to admissible retiral benefits. In such circumstances, the aforesaid judgment cannot help the respondents. The appellant Corporation was fully justified in raising the plea of delay and latches. The High Court erred in ignoring such plea when the delay was quite unusual. We find no material to satisfactorily explain such delay."

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/14736/2020 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

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 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."

8. The said judgment was carried in appeal being

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/14736/2020 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 795 of 2022, which was dismissed

vide judgment dated 22.7.2024 and therefore the same has

attained finality.

9. The submission of the learned advocate for the

petitioners that the said judgment would not be applicable to

the facts of the present case as the petitioners therein were

retired and the petitioners herein are in service cannot be

accepted for the reason that though the petitioners are