Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Guj) 977

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.J. DESAI, MAUNA M. BHATT, JJ.
M.B. Prajapati - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat & Others - Respondents
R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1149 of 2018 In R/Special Civil Application No. 9024 of 2014 With Civil Application (For Interim Relief) No. 1 of 2018
Decided On : 12-10-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. K.B. Pujara, Mr. Pareshkumar B. Trivedi.
For the Respondents: Mr. Tirthraj Pandya Asst. Government Pleader.

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

Headnote:
Pensionary Benefits - Ad Hoc Services - Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 - Rule 25
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, an ad hoc Principal at DIET from 12.8.1997 to 30.6.2014, sought pensionary benefits. The authority refused, relying on the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the ad hoc services should be considered as qualifying service for pensionary benefits, citing previous decisions and interpretations of Rule 25.
Issues: The main issue was whether the ad hoc services of the appellant should be considered as qualifying service for pensionary benefits under Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Rule 25, which includes services rendered in any capacity, whether temporary or permanent, as qualifying service for pension. Previous decisions and the dismissal of appeals by higher courts supported this interpretation.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, quashing the order of the learned Single Judge and directing the authorities to treat the appellant's ad hoc services as qualifying service for pensionary benefits and grant all consequential benefits within eight weeks.

ORDER :

A.J. Desai, J.

1. By way of present appeal under clause 15 of Letters Patent, the appellant – original petitioner has challenged the oral order dated 25.6.20018 passed in captioned writ petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 9024 of 2014 which was decided along with Misc. Civil Application No.2 of 2015 in Special Civil Application No.13676 of 2009. The same has also been challenged by way of filing separate Letters Patent Appeal No. 1263 of 2018 which is listed today along with present appeal. However, it is separately decided. 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 30.6.2014. The appeal came to be admitted on 10.9.2018 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 present appellant was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Government Secondary School on 28.8.1978. Thereafter, he was appointed as ad hoc Principal with DIET on 9.8.1997 and he joined on the said post on 12.8.1997 and continued as ad hoc Principal upto 30.6.2014 (till his retirement). The petitioner therefore requested the authority to grant pensionary benefits treating his service as continuous service from 28.8. 1978 to 30.6.2014 including the period for which he has worked as ad hoc Principal. The authority relying upon the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred as “Rules’), refused the same.

4. Being aggrieved with the said order, the captioned writ petition was filed and following prayers were made to the petition :

“12 (a) to admit this petition and to issue notice for final disposal on returnable date;

(b) to direct the respondents to forthwith sanction the petitioner’s pension case and to issue the pension payment order and death-cum-retirement gratuity order and to pay all the retirement benefits in view of the petitioner’s retirement on 30.6.2014 as Principal of DIET, Ahmedabad-city on reaching the age of superannuation of 58 years;

(c) to restrain the respondents from altering the service-conditions of the petitioner to his disadvantage in any manner whatsoever;

(d) to direct the respondent authorities to complete the formality of regularizing the petitioner’s ad-hoc service as Principal of DIET since 12.8.1997 at the earliest.

(e) to direct the respondents to pay interest @ 18% per annum or at the rate as may be directed by this Hon’ble Court on the delayed payment of the retirement benefits with effect from 30.6.2014;

(f) pending the hearing, and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith sanction the petitioner’s pension case and to issue the pension payment order and death-cum-retirement gratuity order and to pay all the retirement benefits in view of the petitioner’s retirement on 30.6.2014 as Principal of DIET, Ahmedabad - city on reaching the age of superannuation of 58 years, subject to further orders that may be passed by the Hon’ble Court;

(g) pending the hearing, and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to direct the respondents to pay provisional pension to the petitioner with effect from 1.7.2014 until the petitioner’s pension case is sanctioned;

(h) pending the heari