Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Guj) 1150

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Biren Vaishnav, J.
Dineshbhai Bhailalbhai Amin – Petitioner
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 7725 of 2022
Decided On : 20-10-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr Krishnan M Ghavariya for Mr Murali N Devnani
For the Respondent: Mr Utkarsh Sharma, AGP

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 by the Government circular, and the past continuous service of the employees, even prior to their regularization, should be considered for computing pension.

Headnote:
PENSION - Calculation of Pension for Daily Wagers - Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 - Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act - [Samudabhai Jyotibhai Bhedi (2017 (4) GLR 2952), Tribhovanbhai Jerambhai v. Dy. Executive Engineer, Sub Division, R & B Deptt., Surendranagar Dist. Panchayat and Anr. v. Umarkhan Alikhan Malek and ors., State of Gujarat v. Govindbhai Ukabhai Parmar, State of Gujarat v. Ranabhai Ajmalbhai Harijan] - The court discussed the applicability of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act in the calculation of pension for daily wagers. It held that the continuous service of daily wagers from the date of their initial appointments should be counted for the purpose of pension, as clarified by the Government circular. The court emphasized that the past continuous service of the employees, even prior to their regularization, should be considered for computing pension. The court also referred to previous judgments reinforcing this position of law and directed the authorities to process and finalize the pension of the petitioners by calculating it from the date of their initial appointments.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, who were daily wagers, sought direction to revise their pension and gratuity, calculating the amount from the date of their initial appointments. The respondents had not calculated their pension and gratuity from the initial date of their appointments, but only from the date when they were made regular under the resolution dated 17.10.1988.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners were entitled to the reliefs prayed for, as their continuous service from the date of their initial appointments should be counted for the purpose of pension, as clarified by the Government circular. The stand of the respondents, not accepting the position of law, was deemed manifestly erroneous.
Issues: The main issue was the calculation of pension and gratuity for daily wagers, specifically whether their continuous service from the date of their initial appointments should be counted for the purpose of pension, as clarified by the Government circular.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the continuous service of daily wagers from the date of their initial appointments should be counted for the purpose of pension, as clarified by the Government circular. The past continuous service of the employees, even prior to their regularization, should be considered for computing pension.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions by directing the respondents to process and finalize the pension of the petitioners by calculating it from the date of their initial appointments. The benefits including the arrears payable to the petitioners were to be paid within a specified period, and the court made the rule absolute with direct service permitted.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents.

2. With consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

3. The only prayer in this petition is to direct the respondents to revise the pension as well as gratuity calculating from the date of initial appointment to the petitioners till their date of retirement.

4. The Coordinate Bench of this Court considered the identical issue by a decision dated 19.12.2018 rendered in Special Civil Application No.9702 of 2018 and allied matters. The order dated 19.12.2018 reads as under:

With negligible variance in the set of facts, the issue involved in the captioned three petitions being identical, they constitute a group, which were heard together and are being treated for disposal by this common order.

1.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent and request of learned advocates appearing for the parties, Rule returnable forthwith in each of the petitions. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K. M. Antani waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent state and its authorities, whereas learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 5, in all the petitions.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Krishan Ghavariya for learned advocate Mr. Murli Devnani for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K. M. Antani for respondent state and its authorities and learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi for the respondent Nos. 2 and 5.

3. The petitioner of the first captioned Special Civil Application No. 9702 of 2018 worked with the respondents from 14.5.1981 till 30.6.2016. When he retired upon reaching the age of superannuation, he was under the office of Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department as daily wager. During the service period of the petitioner, his services were abruptly brought to an end on 27.9.1984 which led him to file Reference before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, Rajkot, by allowing Reference (LCR) No. 1087 of 1985 on 20th January, 1989, directed reinstatement of the petitioner. What this petitioner has prayed is to direct the respondents to release the benefits including pension as flowing from the state government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 from the date of completion of 5-10-15 years of service. The petitioner has prayed to revise the pension as well as gratuity calculating the amount from the date of his initial appointment.

3.1 The three petitioners in the second petition also worked as Rojamdar under the respondents. The first petitioner joined services on 21.8.1973, came to be regularised on 21.8.1982 and retired with effect from 30.6.2015. The second petitioner joined on 21.4.1979, was regualrised on 21.4.1989 and stood retired on 30.6.2013. Similarly, the third petitioner joined the services on 30.6.1980 whereafter he was regularised in the year 1989 and stood retired with effect from 28.2.2014. It appears that these petitioners were granted the benefits of higher pay scale by virtue of order of this court passed in Special Civil Application No. 3930 of 2002. All the petitioners served the respondents for more three decades. They have prayed for a direction to release the benefits flowing from the state government resolution dated 17.10.1988 on the basis of 5-10- 15 years of services and further prayed to revise the pension as well as the gratuity calculating them from the date of their initial appointments. Still another prayer is made by these petitioners for release of amount of un-availed privileged leave.

3.2 The third captioned petition also involved three petitioners who having worked as daily wagers for long time under the respondents, have been seeking the similar benefits and the relief based on those flowing from the state government resolution dated 17.10.1988 and they want the amount of pension and gratuity

Click Here to Read the rest of this document