IMPORTANT POINT
Temporary and ad hoc service can qualify for pension and retirement benefits as per Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petition is preferred by praying the following reliefs :

“6(A) Be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

(AA) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by the Learned Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal in Appeal No.22 of 2012 dated 17th July, 2014 and in Review Application No.22 of 2014 dated 6th January, 2015.

(B) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the respondents authorities to release the pension and other consequential retirement benefits to petitioner with arrears and interest.

(C) Your Lordship may be pleased to direct the respondent authority to consider all the representation which has been made by the petitioner dated 25-01-2017, and dated 9-0202017, of the petitioner.

(D) Be pleased to direct the respondent to consider the 32 years of the service of the petitioner as per rules and circular of the Government and direct to consider the order passed by District Court.”

2. The brief facts are as follows:

2.1 It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as English Typist with the respondent after being nominated by the Regional Employment Exchange on 13.03.1980. The condition of the appointment/Office Order stipulated that the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis until further orders. It was further case of the petitioner that the appointment of the petitioner was on stop- gap arrangement basis and till his candidature was made available by the Collector, Rajkot.

2.2 The petitioner continued on the post as per the conditions stipulated in the officer order. It can be observed from the record that in the year 1988, the procedure was initiated to terminate the services of the petitioner based on a circular of the General Administration Department of State of Gujarat being Circular No.1178(K) dated 27.04.1976. Being aggrieved by such initiation of the proceedings of termination of services, the petitioner preferred Civil Suit before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot, inter alia, praying for injunction against termination of his services as well as regularization of the service. The Civil Suit came to be numbered as Regular Civil Suit No.1214 of 1988. From the proceedings, it can be observed that a temporary injunction was granted to the petitioner against the termination of his services. On 07.02.2009, the Regular Civil Suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record as well as considering the arguments advanced by the parties.

2.3 Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No.46 of 2009 before the learned Additional District Judge, Rajkot. During the pendency of the appeal, the decree and award passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot in Regular Civil Suit No.1214 of 1988 was stayed. The petitioner got superannuated on 30.11.2011 during the pendency of the Regular Civil Appeal. Therefore, the service of the petitioner was continued from 1988 till his superannuation on the basis of injunctions granted by the Civil Court. It was undisputed that the condition of services of the petitioner was temporary and purely on ad hoc basis.

2.4 It further transpires from the record that after the superannuation of the petitioner on 30.11.2011 and during the pendency of Regular Civil Appeal preferred by the petitioner, another application came to be preferred before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar. The basis of the appeal preferred before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal was that pursuant to superannuation of the petitioner on 30.11.2011, representations were made for payment of pensionary benefits. However, by way of communication dated 13.06.2012, proper response was not given to the petitioner. On the basis of such grievance, the petitioner had preferred appeal before the Gujarat Civil Se