SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Guj) 834

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, NISHA M. THAKORE, JJ.
State of Gujarat and Others - Appellants
Versus 
Gangarambhai Shivabhai Patel and Others - Respondents 
Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507 of 2025, Special Civil Application Nos. 10701, 10764, 10765, 10766, 10767 of 2023, Special Civil Application No. 6070 of 2024, Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2024
Decided On : 27-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : G.H. Virk, Dharitri Pancholi, Aditya Pathak
For the Respondents: Shalin Mehta, D.M. Devnani

Prior service can only be counted for qualifying service under the pension scheme, not for pension fixation, as per the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984.

Headnote:

(A) Letters Patent, 1865 - Clause 15 - Pension Scheme - The court addressed the legality of the State's decision not to consider prior service for pension computation, declaring it illegal and imposing costs on the State for acting without authority. The court directed compliance with previous judgments regarding pension benefits for employees. (Paras 4, 8, 17, 28)

(B) Pension Computation - The court clarified that prior service can only be counted for qualifying service, not for pension fixation, as per the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984. (Paras 22, 24)

Facts of the case:
The appeals arose from a decision by the learned Single Judge allowing employees' claims for pension computation based on their entire service history, including periods before 1982.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Single Judge's direction to compute pension based on total service but clarified that prior service is only relevant for qualifying service, not for pension amount.

Issues: The main issues included whether prior service could be counted for pension computation and the legality of the State's decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that prior service is relevant only for qualifying service under the pension scheme, not for the actual pension amount, reaffirming the binding nature of previous judgments.

Result: Letters Patent Appeals partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

(A.S. SUPEHIA, J.)

1. With consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matters are taken up for final hearing today and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Since similar set of facts are involved and the issue is also analogous in these group of appeals, Letters Patent Appeal No.504 of 2025 is taken up as a lead matter.

3. ADMIT. Learned advocate Mr.D.M. Devnani, appears and waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respective respondent - employees.

BRIEF FACTS :

4. The present Letters Patent Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, are directed against the order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No.10701 of 2023, wherein and whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent - employees by issuing the following directions: -

“8. Under such circumstances, while this Court deems it appropriate to interfere with the decision of the respondents, this Court also deems it appropriate to impose exemplary cost on the State Government for the decision, which is apparently done without any authority of law whatsoever. Under such circumstances, in view of the discussion hereinabove, the following directions are passed:-

(i) The decision of the respondents to not consider the period of service rendered by the petitioners before 01.04.1982 for the purpose of computing pension, is hereby declared as illegal and de hors the direction passed by the learned Coordinate Bench in Special Civil Application No.3250/2009 and allied matters dated 29.06.2017.

(ii) The respondents are directed to ensure that the decision of the learned Coordinate Bench is complied with strictly i.e. to state that the petitioners would be treated to be entitled to all the benefits as available under Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 after counting their entire length of service.

(iii) The respondents to complete the exercise as above within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order and whereas, the arrears shall be paid to the petitioners as per the direction of the learned Coordinate Bench at paragraph no.33 referred to hereinabove.

(iv) The State shall pay cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to the petitioners herein jointly for having taken the decision as above without any authority of law whatsoever. The said amount shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.”

5. There is a long-drawn history of the litigation prior to passing of the impugned order, which emanates from the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 issued by the Education Department, State of Gujarat, introducing the Pension Scheme for the teaching staff in the non-Government afÏliated and aided Colleges and the Universities. The respondent-employees are the employees of such institutions.

6. The earlier round of litigation between the respective parties was confined to the interpretation of Clauses 3 and 4 of the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984, wherein the employees, such as the respondents, who were governed by the CPF scheme and were not allowed to opt for the pension (GPF Scheme) as per the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984, ultimately after long-drawn litigation, the respondent - employees succeeded and the State Government extended the benefit of pension to the respondent–employees as per the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 and their pension payment orders were accordingly prepared and the pension was fixed.

7. It is the case of the employees that when the pension payment orders were passed, it was noticed by them that the earlier services prior to 1982 i.e. cut-off date, which is stipulated in Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 has been ignored.

8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the respondent– employees filed the captioned writ petitions praying for counting the entire service from the date of their

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top