Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 344

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. – Appellant
VERSUS
TALSIBHAI DHANJIBHAI PATEL – Respondents
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 1109 of 2022
Decided On : 18-02-2022

Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, AOR Mr. Umesh Dubey, Adv. Mr. A.A. Bhasme, Adv. Mr. Prateek Som, Adv. Mr. Sudhir S. Rawat, Adv. Mr. Vishrov Mukerjee, Adv

The State cannot benefit from its own wrong and must provide pensionary benefits to employees who have rendered 30 years of continuous service.

Headnote:PENSION - Ad-hoc Services - None Summary: The court found that it was unreasonable for the State to argue that an employee who had rendered 30 years of continuous service as an ad-hoc employee was not entitled to pensionary benefits. The court held that the State cannot benefit from its own wrong and that as a welfare State, it should not have taken such a stand. The High Court's decision to direct the State to pay pensionary benefits to the respondent was upheld, and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

ORDER

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.

2. 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.

3. Hence, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.

4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document