Ad hoc services should be considered as qualifying service for pensionary benefits under Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002.

ORDER :

A.J. Desai, J.

1. By way of present appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, the appellant – original petitioner has challenged the common oral order dated 25.6.2018 passed in captioned writ petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.9024 of 2014 with Misc. Civil Application No.2 of 2015 in Special Civil Application No.13676/2009. In the impugned order, the learned Single Judge refused to grant any of the reliefs of the petitioner by not granting any pensionary and retiral benefits keeping his ad hoc services as Principal of District Institute of Education and Training (hereinafter referred to as “DIET”) from 12.8.1997 till his date of superannuation on 31.10.2009. The appeal came to be admitted on 3.10.2018 and was pending for final disposal.

2. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant has filed further affidavit dated 16.2.2022 (copy of which was supplied to the office of Government Pleader, High Court of Gujarat). Along with said additional affidavit, the appellant has produced several orders passed by learned Single Judge, confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal as well as the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court confirming the order of learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal which is identically similar to the case of the appellant to which there is no reply filed by the State Authority.

3. The short facts on record are as under:

3.1. The petitioner was initially appointed as ADEI (Assistant Deputy Education Inspector) in the year 1979 in Sabarkantha District Education Committee, Himmatnagar on 14.12.1979. While he was serving as such, he came to be selected and appointed as ad-hoc Principal of the District Institute of Education and Training (DIET) by appointed order dated 9.8.1997 and he joined duties on 11.8.1997. He retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.10.2009. However, he was placed under suspension by order dated 3.7.2002 and he was issued charge-sheet dated 15.7.2002. Thereafter, penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on him by order dated 10.9.2009. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 10.9.2009 by way of Special Civil Application No.13676 of 2009, and prayed for reinstatement with all consequential benefits including retirement benefits. The said petition came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 31.1.2014 and as observed in paragraph 20 of the order, the impugned order of compulsory retirement was quashed and set aside, and learned Single Judge directed that the petitioner is held to be in continuous service till the date he reached the age of superannuation, and based on such continuous service, the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits except difference of salary from the date of his suspension to the date of the inquiry report i.e. on 1.11.2004, and the respondents were directed to confer all consequential benefits to the petitioner flowing from the continuous service of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the judgment and order.

3.2. The respondents did not pay the benefits to the petitioner within three months as directed by learned Single Judge but filed application for extension of time being MCA No.1812 of 2014 which was conditionally allowed by learned Single Judge and further one month’s time was granted by order dated 14.7.2014.

3.3. Thereafter, the respondents partly implemented the judgment and paid salaries to the petitioner but did not grant retirement benefits. The petitioner therefore preferred Contempt Petition being MCA No.518 of 2015. The Contempt Bench by order dated 18.6.2015 gave time to the respondents to seek necessary clarification from the learned Single Judge. Thereupon the respondents filed MCA (Stamp) No.1980/2015 along with Civil Application No.7330 of 2016 for condonation of delay. The learned Single Judge rejected both the said applications by order dated 7.7.2015. Thereafter, the Contempt petition was heard and dismissed by order dated 16.