Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 880
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
Sureshchandra Sanjulal Pandya – Appellant
Vs.
State of Gujarat and Ors. – Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 10697 of 1995
Decided On : 15-06-2016
For the Appellant :Nilesh A. Pandya, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Goumta, Asst. Govt. Pleader.
Entitlement to pension benefits under the Gujarat Panchayat Act-1961, Section 203, 228, 249, 294(1) is contingent upon regular recruitment and membership in the Panchayat Service.
Headnote:
PENSION - EMPLOYEE ENTITLEMENT - Gujarat Panchayat Act-1961, Section 203, 228, 249, 294(1) - The deceased petitioner, an employee of the Gram Panchayat, sought pension benefits. The court found that the petitioner was not regularly recruited and not a member of the Panchayat Service as per the Gujarat Panchayat Act. The court directed the Gram Panchayat to make the balance payment of the Contributory Provident Fund (C.P.F) with interest to the legal heirs of the deceased employee.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the Gram Panchayat, sought pension benefits after retiring from service. The petitioner was appointed in 1962 by the Gram Panchayat and was a member of the Contributory Provident Fund (C.P.F).
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not entitled to receive pension on attaining superannuation as he was not regularly recruited and not a member of the Panchayat Service as per the Gujarat Panchayat Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the deceased petitioner was entitled to receive pension benefits on attaining superannuation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was not regularly recruited and not a member of the Panchayat Service as per the Gujarat Panchayat Act, and therefore, not entitled to pension benefits.
Final Decision: The court rejected the writ application and directed the Gram Panchayat to make the balance payment of the Contributory Provident Fund (C.P.F) with interest to the legal heirs of the deceased employee.
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner (since deceased), an employee of the Gram Panchayat, has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, against the respondents to fix up the salary of the petitioner in accordance with the Rules of the Payment, 1969, 1975 and 1987 and pay the difference alongwith 18% interest to the petitioner and to pay the pension in accordance with the pay which may be fixed up by the respondents, regularly on or before of 7th of each month, since April, 1993, and to release all other legal benefits including P.F. Dues which have been accrued in favour of the petitioner incidental and consequential to the retirement of the petitioner at the earliest;
(aa) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 7th February, 2001 passed by the respondent No. 1 which is annexed hereto as Annexure 'I' to this petition and also be pleased to direct the respondent, their agent and servants to pay all the monetary benefit as well as the pensionary benefits in accordance with law with 18% interest, as the petitioner is regular employee of an retired from the Government and to give all the benefits as prayed for within reasonable time.
(c) pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, the respondent No. 1 and 2 be directed to pay Rs. 1500/- ad hoc payment towards pension of the petitioner, which may be adjusted from the amount of the pension, which is due and payable since April 1993, by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to the petitioner;
(d) restrain the respondent No. 2 to recover the amount as per Annexure 'D'.
(e) grant any other and further relief which may be deemed fit in the interest of justice;
(f) to award the cost of this petition."
2. The facts of this case may be summarized as under;
2.1 The petitioner was appointed as an Octroi Clerk in the office of the respondent No. 2 on the strength of a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat.
2.2 In 1966, he came to be promoted on the post of the Recovery Clerk.
2.3 In 1979, he was promoted to the post of the Accountant.
2.4 On 31st March, 1993, he retired from the service.
2.5 This petition was filed with a complaint that the pension is not being paid to him.
2.6 On 28th September, 2000, the following order was passed;
"1. It is really shocking that a retired person is sought to be made shuttlecock in between T.D.O. And D.D.O. by the State Government. It is a case where on retirement of the petitioner, the Gram Panchayat concerned has provisionally granted pension to him by the resolution, reference of which has been made in the special civil application. This resolution of the Gram Panchayat was set aside by the T.D.O. under the order dated 1-6-1994. Against this order of T.D.O., the petitioner filed an appeal to D.D.O. but he has not entertained the same on the ground that he has no jurisdiction in the matter. Then he approached to the State Government in the matter but the State Government felt content and satisfied by directing that he may approach to the D.D.O.
2. The Secretary to the Department of Panchayat and Gram Gruha Nirman, New Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar is directed to decide this matter of the petitioner whether he is entitled for pension or not. If the petitioner is entitled for pension then he has to see that the petitioner get all monetary benefits of the same. This exercise has to be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. This petition itself may be considered to be a representation-cum-appeal of the petitioner. Where the claim of the petitioner is acceptable for pension, all arrears has to be paid to him within a period of 15 days next and the petitioner shall also be entitled for interest on the arrears at the rate of 18% p.a. from the due date. Com
