Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BIREN VAISHNAV, J.
GANPATJI NENAJI THAKOR – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
Special Civil Application Nos. 7669, 13183, 13320, 13678 of 2022
Decided On : 27-09-2022
Pensionary Benefits - Service Reckoning - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 25B; Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 - The court directed the respondents to fix the pension of the petitioners by counting their services from the date of their initial joining until the date of their retirement and in doing so each year of service preceding the date of regularization in which years the petitioners have completed 240 days shall only be considered for recalculating pension.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were working under the respondents in the Irrigation Department and had retired on superannuation, sought to direct the respondents to consider the initial date of service as services for the purposes of gratuity and pension and revise pensionary benefits accordingly.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the petitioners, holding that the entire length of service from the date of their initial appointments has to be considered for the purposes of fixation of pensionary benefits.
Issues: The main issue was whether the entire length of service from the date of the petitioners' initial appointments should be considered for the purposes of fixation of pensionary benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 25B and the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to support its decision to reckon the entire length of service for the purposes of pensionary benefits.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions, directing the respondents to fix the pension of the petitioners by counting their services from the date of their initial joining until the date of their retirement and considering each year of service preceding the date of regularization in which the petitioners have completed 240 days for recalculating pension.
JUDGMENT :
BIREN VAISHNAV, J.
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Soaham Joshi learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent/State.
2. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the petitions are taken up for final hearing.
3. Since the issue involved in these petitions is the same, Special Civil Application No. 7669 of 2022 is taken as a lead matter for the purposes of this judgment.
4. The prayer in the petition is to direct the respondents to consider the initial date of service as services for the purposes of gratuity and pension and revise pensionary benefits accordingly.
5. Mr. H.B. Singh relies on the judgment dated 18.07.2022 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 19828 of 2021 and allied matters.
6. The said judgment reads as under:
2. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the petitions are taken up for final hearing.
3. Since the issue involved in these petitions is the same, Special Civil Application No. 19828 of 2021 is taken as a lead matter for the purposes of this judgment.
4. The main prayers in the petition reads as under:
“(b) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to forthwith revise the pension and gratuity by counting their services from the date of joining till date of retirement, in the light of settled law and binding position of law as mentioned herein above and make the payment of arrears to the petitioners accordingly with interest @ 12% per from.
(c) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondents to revise the pension and gratuity by counting their services from the date of joining till date of retirement, in the light of settled law and binding position of law as mentioned herein above; and make the payment of arrears to the petitioners accordingly with interest @ 12% per from.”
5. The petitioners working under the respondents in the Irrigation Department and having put in service of more than 25 years to 30 years and have retired on superannuation on various dates. Some of the workmen after their retirement have expired and are represented by their legal heirs. It is their case that by virtue of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 the benefits of permanency and completion of 10 years under the respondents accrue in their favour.
6. Having retired from service, representations were made to the respondents for considering their initial 10 years of service rendered as daily wagers for the purposes of calculation of pension.
7. Mr. H.B. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the pension payment orders to indicate that their past service rendered as daily wagers has not been counted from their initial date of appointment as service reckonable for pension.
8. Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court delivered in case of PWD Employees Union through President Saiyed Ibrahim and Others vs. State of Gujarat through Secretary Narmada Water and Others, rendered in Special Civil Application No. 5530 of 2003.
9. The aforesaid order relying on a decision of this Court in case of State of Gujarat and Another vs. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas and Another, 2011 (2) GLR 1290, reads as under:
“In all these petitions, the petitioners while relying upon Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 which confer a status of permanency on daily rated employees on satisfaction of the criteria prescribed therein, have come out with a grievance that some of the benefits like leave encashment, public holidays, transport allowance, medical allowance, group insurance, counting of service from the date of joining for the purpose of pension, were
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entire length of service from the date of initial appointment should be considered for the purposes of fixation of pensionary benefits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees to have their past services counted for pensionary benefits, as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the continuous service of daily wagers from the date of their initial appointments should be counted for the purpose of pension, as clarified ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the benefits of pension to daily wagers should be calculated from the date of their initial appointments, as per the Government Resolution dat....
Service prior to regularization should be considered for pension calculation, as clarified by the Government circular.
Retiral benefits must be calculated from the date of initial appointment, not from the date of regularization, as established by precedents.
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
