Point of Law: Rule 25 of the Rules stipulates that all service, including service on probation rendered on a regular establishment in any capacity whether, temporary or permanent, interrupted or continuous shall be considered as qualifying service except the service provided from clause (a) to (h). Sub Rule (viii) of Rule 25 of the Rules provides that the services rendered as full time attendant by a Government employee before his appointment as Class-IV employee shall be counted as qualifying service

JUDGMENT :

A.S. Supehia, J.

1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction directing the respondent-authorities to extend her the benefit of pension.

2. The petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment on 08.03.1999 and the same was rejected vide communication dated 17.07.2000. By an another application dated 29.06.2001, the petitioner again requested the respondent authorities to grant him compassionate appointment in Class-II service, since he had cleared the SSC and Typing exam. However, the same was also rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner again applied for the same vide application dated 13.09.2002 and vide communication dated 01.07.2003, the respondent-department accepted the same and accordingly, granted permission to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground and accordingly, the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 18.08.2004 on ad hoc basis for a period of 5 years on the post of Typist.

3. After completion of 5 years of service as a Typist, the petitioner was regularly appointed vide order dated 11.09.2009 in the regular pay-scale of Rs. 5200-20200/- and on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.10.2014, the petitioner retired from service.

4. Since the petitioner was not paid any retiral benefits or pension, she has approached this Court by filing the captioned writ petition.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Krishnan Ghavariya appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the inaction on the part of the respondent-authorities in delaying his appointment to the post of Typist. He has submitted that by the communication dated 18.07.2003, the Director of Government Printing Press, Gandhinagar, requested the Gujarat Subordinate Service Selection Board to pass appropriate orders appointing her on a Class-III post, however, the same was decided after a period of six months and vide communication dated 13.01.2004, the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis. He has submitted that the service rendered by the petitioner on ad hoc basis on the post of Typist on fix pay cannot be ignored for the purpose of conferring the benefit of pension. He has also submitted that as per the Government Resolution dated 18.01.2017 issued by the State, the service rendered by a Class-III or IV employee on 5 years fixed pay basis is required to be considered for the purpose of pension and hence, if the 5 years' service rendered by the petitioner on fixed pay on ad hoc basis is added, the petitioner would be completing 10 years of service, which would entitle her for pensionary benefits. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 2019 SC 4390. Thus, he has submitted that the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner is required to be deprecated and set aside.

6. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Ishan Joshi has submitted that the petitioner would not be entitled to any retirement benefit as the initial period of 5 years of service rendered by her as ad hoc cannot be considered as pensionable service. He has submitted that the petitioner was regularized vide order dated 11.09.2009 and she reached the age of superannuation on 31.10.2014 and hence, she will not be entitled to pension as the qualifying service for claiming pension is 10 years. He has also submitted that the only period which can be counted is from 2009 to 2014, and the same does not meet the requirement of qualifying service of 10 years and hence, she would not be entitled to pension.

7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

8. The petitioner is denied the benefit of pension since the respondent authorities have ignored her 5 years of service rendered by her on fixed pay. The petitioner was appointed vide order dated 18.08.2004 on ad hoc