Point of Law: The petitioner has been compulsorily retired in the year 2010 on completion of 30 years of service as per Regulation 19 of Regulation 1961 which was prevailing at relevant time together with the direction of the Division Bench and therefore, the respondent Corporation has no other option but to retire the petitioner on completion of 30 years as the respondent Corporation did not invoke 1st Provisio or 2nd Provisio of Regulation 19 for extension of service of the petitioner.

ORDER :

Heard learned advocate Mr. Prabhakar Upadyay for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Jayneel Parikh for the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr. R.D. Dave for the respondent No.2 through video conference.

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

“(A) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari and/or Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 20.12.2010 issued by the respondent Corporation at Annexure-A to this petition.

(B) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to hold and declared that the action on the part of the present respondent Corporation of retiring the present petitioner from service on completion of 30 years of service by an order dated 20.12.2010, on the basis of the Regulation No.19 of the Gujarat State Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulation, 1961 is ex-facie illegal, unjust, unfair, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the prevailing Regulation of the Corporation and it is a case of victimization.

(C) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to direct the present respondent Corporation to reinstate the present petitioner on his original post with continuity of service alongwith full back wages with all consequential benefits to which the present petitioner is entitled too.

(D) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to pass any other further Order/s as are deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that :

2.1. The petitioner was appointed with respondent No.2-Gujarat State Financial Corporation with effect from 31.12.1980 on the Post of Clerk-cum-Typist and thereafter, was promoted to the posts of Assistant in the year 1986 and Senior Officer (field) in the year 1998.

2.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was superannuated and was retired from the service with effect from 22.12.2010 on completion of 30 years of service as per the Regulation No.19 of the Gujarat State Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulation, 1961 (for short ‘the Regulation, 1961’).

2.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.2-Corporation has adopted the Gujarat State Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulation, 1979 (for short ‘the Regulation, 1979’) and Regulation 18 thereof does not prescribe retirement on completion of 30 years of service of any employee. It is therefore, the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled to be continued in service till he attained the age of 58 years i.e. up to 31st May, 2017.

2.4. It appears that the issue of Regulation 19 of Regulation 1961 was agitated by the Gujarat State Financial Corporation (Staff Union) before this Court by filing Special Civil Applications along with individual employees and the learned Single Judge by order dated 09.09.2005 allowed such petitions by interpreting Regulation 19 in detail. The respondent No.2-Corporation being aggrieved by the said order preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.1253 of 2005 and other allied matters and the Division Bench of this Court vide orders dated 13.03.2008 and 14.03.2008 allowed the Appeals filed by the respondent No.2-Corporation by reading down the second provisio to the Regulation 19 and quashed and set aside the judgment and order dated 9th September, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge.

2.5. It appears that thereafter Gujarat State Financial Corporation (Staff Union and Others) preferred Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court which was dismissed vide order dated 15.01.2010 by giving liberty to the petitioners to raise all the issues before the High Court.

2.6. The Gujarat State Financial Corporation (Staff Union) thereafter preferred Special Civil Application No.15090 of 2010. The said petition was admitted vide order dated 27.07.2011, however, subsequently the petition was withdrawn by the petitioners and accordi