Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Guj) 399

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
N.V.ANJARIA, NIRAL R. MEHTA, JJ.
Research Scientist Agriculture Office – Appellant
Versus
Lilaben Laljibhai Sankaliya – Respondent
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 202 of 2023 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7061 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2022
Decided on : 21-02-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA
For the Respondent: MRS NASRIN N SHAIKH

The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of qualifying service under Rule 11.1 of the Gujarat Agricultural Employees Pension Rules, 2002, and its application to the petitioner's case as an agricultural labourer.

Headnote:
PENSION - AGRICULTURAL LABOURER - Gujarat Agricultural Employees Pension Rules, 2002 - Rule 11.1, Rule 12.1, Rule 13.1 - The court held that the petitioner, an agricultural labourer, was entitled to pension having completed the years of qualifying service as provided under the relevant pension rules of the university. The court analyzed the meaning and scope of qualifying service under Rule 11.1 and concluded that the petitioner's service as a field worker on a daily wage basis fell within the parameters prescribed under the rule. The court also referenced similar provisions in Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 and cited previous cases where long-term adhoc employees were held to have earned qualifying service under the rules. The court dismissed the appeal and directed the respondents to comply with the directions regarding fixation and payment of pension including payment of arrears by a specified date.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an agricultural labourer, sought direction to fix and pay pension regularly including arrears of pension from the date of her retirement. The respondent university denied pension to her, contending that she was a daily wager and not entitled to any pensionary benefit under Rule 11.1 of the Gujarat Agricultural Employees Pension Rules.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was entitled to pension having completed the years of qualifying service as provided under the relevant pension rules of the university. The court analyzed the meaning and scope of qualifying service under Rule 11.1 and concluded that the petitioner's service as a field worker on a daily wage basis fell within the parameters prescribed under the rule. The court also referenced similar provisions in Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 and cited previous cases where long-term adhoc employees were held to have earned qualifying service under the rules. The court dismissed the appeal and directed the respondents to comply with the directions regarding fixation and payment of pension including payment of arrears by a specified date.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could be said to have completed qualifying service as per pension rules framed by the agricultural university.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Rule 11.1 of the Gujarat Agricultural Employees Pension Rules, 2002, which defines qualifying service to include service rendered in any capacity, whether temporary or permanent, interrupted or continuous. The court concluded that the petitioner's service as a field worker on a daily wage basis fell within the parameters prescribed under the rule, and therefore, she was entitled to pension.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and directed the respondents to comply with the directions regarding fixation and payment of pension including payment of arrears by a specified date.

JUDGMENT :

N.V.ANJARIA, J.

Heard learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia for the appellants and learned advocate Ms.Nasrin Shaikh for the respondent.

2. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred by the Agricultural Research Centre, Amreli and the Junagadh Agriculutral University - appellants herein, is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.09.2022 of the learned Single Judge, whereby the Special Civil Application of the respondent-original petitioner came to be allowed. Learned Single Judge held that the petitioner was entitled to pension having completed the years of qualifying service as provided under the relevant pension rules of the university.

3. What was prayed by the petitioner in her Special Civil Application was to direct the respondent authorities to fix the pension and pay the pension regularly including arrears of pension from the date of retirement of the petitioner, which was 31.01.2010.

3.1 The petitioner was appointed as Agricultural Labourer in respondent no.1 University as daily wager with effect from 10.06.1979. It was stated that at that time, she was getting wage of Rs.5/- per day and was required to serve for eight hours everyday. It is the case of the petitioner that a scheme was framed by respondent no.2 University for the purpose of regularisation of the daily-rated employees. According to the scheme, those daily wagers who may have completed 10 years of service including 240 days in a year on 31.12.2000 where entitled to be regularised as permanent and were entitled to get pay-scale. The Scheme was framed on 17.03.2001, which was pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in Gujarat University in Gujarat Agricultural University vs Rathod Labhu Bechar[(2001) 3 SCC 574].

3.2 It was further the case of the petitioner that she had completed 10 years of service including 240 days in a year to be entitled to the benefit of regularisation in the said scheme. The petitioner made representation, sent demand notice through the Union and also approached the District Collector, with representation, but nothing yielded. Not only that, it was stated that under section 2 of the scheme, the University regularised the employees who were in fixed salary by issuing office order.

3.3 It was averred by the petitioner that other employees who had been working with the petitioner named Kashiben Pethani appointed on 18.05.1983, Jayaben Sakadiya appointed on 19.07.1985 and Parshottambhai Parmar who was appointed on 16.08.1988 came to be regularised. The petitioner was appointed on 10.06.1979 and named employees who have been regularised were junior to the petitioner, it was contended.

3.4 The petitioner reached the age of superannuation and retired from service on 30.10.2010. It appears that the petitioner made application before the Visama Lok Adalat on 16.02.2010 for payment of leave encashment, pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits. The order passed by the said forum allowed the payment of gratuity and other benefits, however, the issue remained pending. It was the grievance of the petitioner in the petition that though having reached the age of 62 years, the respondent University had denied pension to her.

3.5 The petition was contested by respondent by filing affidavit-in-reply. Rejoinder affidavit and sur-rejoinder affidavit were also filed. The contention of the respondent that the petitioner was daily wager and could not be said to be holding any post and that she was entitled to any pensionary benefit in view of Rule 11.1 of the Gujarat Agricultural Employees Pension Rules. It was submitted that only those persons on full time post were liable to be regularised and order pension.

4. Learned Single Judge while allowing the petition inter alia noted that the petitioner had been working at least since 1994 till 2003 as field worker and by order dated 07.03.2006, she was made permanent with effect from 01.01.2004. The contention of the petitioner was noted that when the a