IMPORTANT POINT
Temporary services are liable to be counted as pensionable under Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocate Ms.Shikha Panchal on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sahil Trivedi on behalf of the respondent – State.

1.1. At the outset, learned advocate Ms.Panchal tenders a draft amendment. The same is granted. To be carried out during the course of the day.

1.2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sahil Trivedi waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent – State.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action on part of the respondent no.2 in not issuing Form-22 in terms of Rule 147(b) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, allowing the petitioner to claim pension and gratuity, as illegal and bad in law;

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to issue Form-22 to the petitioner, in terms of Rule 147(b) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, thereby releasing his first claim towards pension and gratuity;

(C) Pending admission and final hearing of the petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to issue Form-22 to the petitioner in terms of Rule 147(b) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002.”

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had been appointed in the month of August, 1989 as a Peon-cum-Driver at the office of District Supply Officer, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar on a fixed monthly pay of Rs.1800/- and the petitioner was appointed for 29 days in a month with an artificial break of one day.

3.1. It appears that vide an order dated 18.12.1990, the petitioner’s services were terminated resulting in the petitioner challenging the same before the learned Labour Court, Himmatnagar by preferring Reference (LCH) No.741/1996. It appears that vide Award dated 15.02.1999, the learned Labour Court had allowed the reference and whereas the petitioner was directed to be reinstated on his original post with backwages.

3.2. The respondent – District Supply Officer being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Labour Court had challenged the same before this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No.1570/2000 and whereas vide order dated 15.03.2000 a learned Coordinate Bench had stayed the order of backwages and whereas it would appear that later on, the matter had been referred to Lok Adalat and the Lok Adalat vide order dated 31.10.2001 had ordered that the petitioner be paid 25% backwages and whereas 75% backwages was waived by the petitioner.

3.3. It appears that the petitioner was reinstated in service in the interregnum on 11.04.2000 and had continued as such till he reached the age of retirement. It would further appear that the petitioner, upon reinstatement, had been placed in regular pay scale of 2550-55-2660-60-3200 and whereas, the petitioner had been paid revision of pay as available to a regular employee. It would further appear that upon the petitioner reaching the age of superannuation on 30.04.2022, the respondents had finalized the pension papers of the petitioner based upon the last pay received by the present petitioner and whereas, since Form-22 as per Rule 147(b) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 had not been released by the competent authority, the petitioner was constrained to prefer the present petition with the prayers mentioned as noted hereinabove.

3.4. At this stage, it would be pertinent to note that while from the documents it appears that the pension case of the petitioner had been finalized and whereas except for Form-22 not being released, the petitioner would have been paid all the retiral dues as well as pension, yet, it also appears that vide an order dated 12.05.2023, the District Supply Officer/Resident Additional Collector had rejected the reque