2020 Supreme(Guj) 543

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Biren Vaishnav, J.
Chimanbhai Ramjibhai Dalvadi - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Gujarat & 3 Others - Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 8642 of 2020
Decided On : 27-07-2020

Point of Law:
Government decided to grant benefits of regularization and permanency to daily rated workers who had completed more than 10 years of actual service prior to such date, of course subject to certain conditions. One of the clauses in the said Government Resolution was that the benefit of regularization would be available to those workmen who had completed more than 10 years of service considering the provisions of section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act. They would get benefits of regular pay scale and other allowances, pension, gratuity, regular leaves etc. They would retire on crossing age of 60 years. That the period of regular service shall be pensionable.

Headnote:

Industrial Disputes Act – Section 25B – Employment and Service matter – Retirement – Claiming Pension – Daily wagers – Resolution – Petitioner is that he joined services with the respondents and superannuated from service – It is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled to the period prior to of this benefit under the resolution for the purposes of pension – In short, it is his case that his higher service shall be treated as continuous for the purposes of pension – Common grievance of all the petitioners in the captioned petitions, who are daily wagers and who have worked more that 10 years, in some cases more than three decades, raised is that their pension and gratuity are not calculated from initial date of their appointments, but they are counted only from the date when they were made regular under resolution. They further prayed to release the benefits available under resolution from their initial appointment – Held, It appears that the pension proposal of the petitioners was already sent. The office of the Director of Pension and Provident Fund, asked the competent authority to fulfill the certain requirements. However, the authorities did not accept the pension case of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners were not entitled to pension for the period of initial 10 years. They did not reckon the date of initial appointments of the petitioners to calculate the pension, but viewed that their period of service until they become regular, could be liable to be deducted from the total period for the purpose of pension – respondents are therefore directed to take a decision in accordance with law keeping in mind the aforesaid decision, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the event the decision is adverse to the petitioner, it will be open for the petitioner to apply afresh – Directions issued – Petition partly allowed. (Para 6)

Facts of the case:

Case of the petitioner is that he joined the services with the respondents on 01.11.1979 and superannuated from service on 21.05.2020. It is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled to the period prior to the date of this benefit under the resolution dated 17.10.1988 for the purposes of pension. In short, it is his case that his higher service shall be treated as continuous for the purposes of pension – common grievance of all the petitioners in the captioned petitions, who are daily wagers and who have worked more that 10 years, in some cases more than three decades, raised is that their pension and gratuity are not calculated from initial date of their appointments, but they are counted only from the date when they were made regular under resolution dated 17.10.1988. They further prayed to release the benefits available under resolution dated 17.10.1988 from their initial appointment.

Findings of the court:

it appears that the pension proposal of the petitioners was already sent. The office of the Director of Pension and Provident Fund, asked the competent authority to fulfill the certain requirements. However, the authorities did not accept the pension case of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners were not entitled to pension for the period of initial 10 years. They did not reckon the date of initial appointments of the petitioners to calculate the pension, but viewed that their period of service until they become regular, could be liable to be deducted from the total period for the purpose of pension – respondents are therefore directed to take a decision in accordance with law keeping in mind the aforesaid decision, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the event the decision is adverse to the petitioner, it will be open for the petitioner to apply afresh – Directions issued.

Result: Petition partly allowed