Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Biren Vaishnav, J.
Chetankumar Ambalal Gandhi - Appellant
Vs.
State of Gujarat - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 8832, 10248, 10246, 8833 of 2019
Decided On : 08-03-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14, 226 - U.P Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 - Section 33(C) – Equality before law – Power of High court to issue writ - Petitions under Article 226 of Constitution of India, prayers of petitioners is to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, holding that new defined pension scheme is not applicable to present petitioners - Prayers of petitioners is that petitioners are entitled to for benefits under old Pension Scheme/GPF – Held, it is clearly distinguished inasmuch as it was not accepted that once name of selected candidates was recommended by GPSC, exercise of issuing appointment orders was merely a ministerial act - State from affidavit as is evident, though in perception of petitioners have admitted delay, that delay would not accrue in favour of petitioners inasmuch as State had to undertake exercise of verification of antecedents, character, caste certificates, age, qualifications etc., which it did for 255 candidates which reasonably took about two to three months and had to be sent back and forth as certain caste certificates were found to be non genuine - Even decision in case of (supra) would not apply to facts of case - In case before Uttarakhand High Court, in case of same advertisement, women candidates were appointed earlier in point of time as compared to male candidates - Selection process was common, advertisement was common, it was in case of women candidates that benefits of pension scheme was given whereas that condition was altered to detriment of male candidates - On basis of an anomolous situation which was clearly in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India, that Uttarakhand High Court opined as it did - Considering all these submissions and decisions relied upon by learned counsels for respective parties, there cannot be a fault found with authorities in extending benefits of New Pension Scheme as per resolution admittedly when after recommendations made in December 2004 finally by GPSC, process of appointment bonafidely took some time due to administrative process involved therein - Petitions are dismissed.
JUDGMENT/ORDER :
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP, waives service of rule on behalf of the State-respondents.
2. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayers of the petitioners is to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, holding that the new defined pension scheme is not applicable to the present petitioners. The prayers of the petitioners is that the petitioners are entitled to for the benefits under the old Pension Scheme/GPF.
3. For the purposes of brevity, facts of Special Civil Application No.8832 of 2019 are discussed.
3.1 An advertisement for the posts of Class-I and Class-II services under the Government of Gujarat was issued by the Gujarat Public Service Commission on 30.10.2000. Amongst other conditions enumerated in the advertisement, one such condition was that the appointees shall be governed by the GPF. It is the case of the petitioners that after the advertisement was issued in the year 2000, after having undergone a selection process through written examinations and oral interviews, the final list of selected candidates was given by the Gujarat Public Service Commission on 30.10.2004. A lot of time went into finalizing and finishing the administrative process relating to appointments and the appointment orders were issued on 29.07.2005 (Special Civil Application No. 8832 of 2019), 28.6.2005 (SCA No.8833 of 2019), 10.06.2005 (SCA No.8834 of 2019), 29.07.2005 (SCA No. 10246 of 2019) and on 25.08.2005 (SCA No.10248 of 2019).
3.2 It is the case of the petitioners that they were informed by a letter of 06.11.2004 that the final recommendations were sent to the Government, notified on official Gazette on 02.12.2004. That Notification in the government gazette being prior to 01.04.2005, it is the case of the petitioners that they are entitled to the benefit of the old pension scheme/GPF.
3.3 It is averred in the petition that the Chief Minister accorded sanction to the appointments as is evident from the notings on 17.02.2005. The decision was taken on 13.05.2005 and therefore, even if such appointment orders were issued post 01.04.2005, the fact that the decision making process had been undertaken their, appointments should relate back to a date pre 01.04.2005 and they be governed by the Old Pension Scheme.
3.4 Circulars of the Government dated 16.01.1969, 27.05.1982 and 30.07.1983 are annexed to the petition in support of the submission of the petitioners that the entire process of selection and appointments has to be finished within two months which period was subsequently extended to a period of six months and therefore the government should not have taken more than six months in their appointments thereby making them ineligible for the benefits of the old pension scheme but having made them amenable to the new pension scheme namely the new CPF Scheme vide communication dated 18.03.2005. Representations made by the petitioners are on record.
4. I have heard Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate and Mr.Gautam Joshi, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.Vimal Purohit and Mr.Vyom Shah and Ms.Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP for the State. Learned Senior Counsels for the petitioners have made the following submissions:
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
