Back
2019 Supreme(Guj) 1152
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. Supehia, J.
Rambhai Ishwarbhai Patel & others – Petitioners
Versus
Gujarat Vidhyapith & others – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No.19003 of 2017 & 6550 of 2008
Decided On : 15-03-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A. J. Yagnik
For the Respondent: Mr. Udayan P. Vyas, Ms. Krina Calla, AGP
Point of Law: Cannot be denied pension on the pretext of non-availability of grant. The pension of the petitioners is required to be conferred from the grant which is received for the employees of the Gujarat Vidhyapith
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14 - Pensionary and gratuity benefits and such other supplemental and incidental benefits - Supplemental and incidental benefits to the petitioners with immediate effect - Claim of pension and other retirement benefits - Common issue has arisen in these writ petitions, same were heard together and Special Civil Application being treated as a lead matter and facts mentioned in the memorandum of petition are reproduced here-in-below for deciding the present controversy - Petitioners have secured their posts after following due process of appearing before an interview committee and subsequently getting selected between - It would be pertinent to note that 20 out of 24 petitioners have already retired from services and out petitioners are legal heirs of the deceased employees - States in India where the tribal population is beyond 10 lacs. Except the State of Gujarat where TRTI is run as an integral part of respondent-Gujarat Vidhyapith, in all other States the TRTI is run under the direct control of respective Department of Tribal Development. Other States Department of Tribal Affairs have a direct control and not through a nodal agency is the case herein, have all extended benefits of the available pension schemes prevailing in their respective States before - State of Gujarat decided to extent pensionary benefits and gratuity benefits to teachers and non-teaching staffs of all universities and the affiliated colleges, including respondent-Gujarat Vidhyapith since it was termed as deemed university in year 1986. Respondent-Gujarat Vidhyapith framed Pension Rules -
Finding of the Court:
Respondents are misconstruing their “posting” as “appointments pension scheme, which is made applicable to other employees of the Gujarat Vidhyapith is required to be extended to the petitioners as their original appointment is made by Gujarat Vidhyapith and not by the TRTI - Petitioners cannot be denied pension on the pretext of non-availability of grant - State Government, the Central Government and Gujarat Vidhyapith are/were required to include the pension expenditure of the petitioners and sanction the grants accordingly so that they can receive pension as received by other employees in wake of fact that there were only 24 such employees. It was not an uphill task for respondent authorities to manage grant for pension of 24 employees - State Government/Central Government and Gujarat Vidhyapith should have tidied up the controversy by making necessary adjustment in the grant for conferring pensionary benefits to petitioners along with other employees –
Result: Petitions are allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. These writ petitions raise identical issue and are, therefore, with the consent of the parties, taken up for final disposal together.
2. The issue involved in these petitions is with regard to extending the pensionary and gratuity benefits and such other supplemental and incidental benefits to the petitioners with immediate effect along with arrears with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
3. In view of the fact that common issue has arisen in these writ petitions, the same were heard together and Special Civil Application No.19003 of 2017 being treated as a lead matter and the facts mentioned in the memorandum of petition are reproduced here-in-below for deciding the present controversy.
4. The petitioners have secured their posts after following due process of appearing before an interview committee and subsequently getting selected between 1962 to 2002. It would be pertinent to note that 20 out of 24 petitioners have already retired from services and out of 20 petitioners; 04 petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased employees.
(4.1) The Tribal Research and Training Institute (TRTI) is established in those States in India where the tribal population is beyond 10 lacs. Except the State of Gujarat where the TRTI is run as an integral part of the respondent-Gujarat Vidhyapith, in all other States the TRTI is run under the direct control of respective Department of Tribal Development. Other States, wherein the Department of Tribal Affairs have a direct control and not through a nodal agency (Gujarat Vidhyapith), which is the case herein, have all extended the benefits of the available pension schemes prevailing in their respective States before 2005.
(4.2) The petitioners working under the TRTI have also made representations regarding the inaction of the State Government and have pleaded for extending pensionary benefits as applicable in the State of Gujarat at par with other Government employees.
(4.3) The respondent – State of Gujarat decided to extent pensionary benefits and gratuity benefits to the teachers and non-teaching staffs of all the universities and the affiliated colleges, including the respondent-Gujarat Vidhyapith since it was termed as deemed university in the year 1986. Respondent-Gujarat Vidhyapith framed the Pension Rules in the year 1988.
(4.4) The Respondent-Gujarat Vidhyapith has been giving pensionary benefits to all its teaching and non-teaching employees since 1986, except to its employees posted at TRTI and Hindi Bhasha Bhavan. According to the respondent-Gujarat Vidhyapith, these two institutes are not the institutes of the higher education and, therefore, its own employees posted there are not entitled to get pensionary and gratuity benefits. Moreover, the respondent-Gujarat Vidhyapith grants such benefits to the employees, teaching and non-teaching, who are covered under the maintenance grant given by the University Grants Commission (UGC). Since the TRTI is not covered for the maintenance grant of the UGC, the respondent-Gujarat Vidhyapith does not give pensionary benefits.
(4.5) On the basis of the Rules, the respondent-Gujarat Vidhyapith draws a so-called distinction between the pensionable posts for its employees and the post of the petitioners is classified as non-pensionable post and, therefore, they have not been granted pensionary and gratuity benefits.
(4.6) It is contended that even if the petitioners are not covered under the Pension Rules, they are entitled to pensionary and gratuity benefits being employees of the respondent-Gujarat Vidhyapith. It is submitted that such rules and regulations interpreted so as to deny the benefits to the petitioners are discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Yagnik for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are seeking the retirement benefits such as pension and gratuity being the employees/retired employees of the respondent-Gujarat Vidhyapith and havi
