Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 18061
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J
RANABHAI KALABHAI RATHOD – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19824 of 2021
An employee deemed to have resigned under Rule 16(2)(a) is entitled to retirement benefits after qualifying service, as established by prior court decisions.
Headnote:(A) Gujarat Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2002 - Rule 16(2)(a) - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Deemed resignation - The court addressed whether an employee deemed to have resigned under Rule 16(2)(a) is entitled to retiral benefits. The court noted that previous decisions established that deemed resignation does not preclude entitlement to retirement benefits after qualifying service. (Paras 3, 4, 5)
(B) Jurisdiction of Writ Court - The writ court can mold relief beyond the specific prayers to meet the ends of justice. The court emphasized that the substantive issue of entitlement to benefits is integral to the deemed resignation issue. (Paras 3.4, 4.1)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's order treating him as having deemed resigned under Rule 16(2)(a) and sought clarification on entitlement to retiral benefits. The petitioner had previously given up the challenge to the deemed resignation itself.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's case for pension and other retirement benefits based on his length of service, to be paid within twelve weeks, with interest for delays.
Issues: The main issue was whether an employee deemed to have resigned is entitled to retirement benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that deemed resignation does not negate entitlement to retirement benefits, affirming the principle that the writ court can address related issues even if not explicitly prayed for.
Result: Petition allowed.
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Krishnan Ghavaria for learned advocate Mr.Hitesh Makwana on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Nidhi Vyas on behalf of the respondent – State.
2. As noted in the order dated 27.02.2023, while the present petition had been preferred challenging order dated 05.08.2020 passed by the learned Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar in Application No.84/2008 whereby the order of treating the petitioner as having deemed resigned under Rule 16(2)(a) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2002 was rejected.
3. Considering such an aspect, since the only issue which would require consideration of this Court is whether a person whose services are brought to an end by invoking power under Rule 16(2)(a) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2002 would be entitled to any retiral benefits or not.
3.1. This Court had, vide order dated 26.03.2024 noted the submission of learned advocate for the petitioner that the issue stands covered by decisions of this Court and whereas, today, upon being called upon learned AGP, while contesting the aspect of the applicant to challenge the order of deemed to resign, could not produce before this Court any contrary decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby the view taken by this Court in earlier decisions have been interfered with.
3.2. Learned AGP would further submit that since the petition was filed only challenging the order dated 05.08.2020 passed by the learned Tribunal, therefore, the scope of the present petition may not be permitted to be expanded by the petitioner by seeking retiral benefits even upon the services being brought to an end by invoking Rule 16(2)(a) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2002.
3.3. Considering the submissions made by learned AGP, at the outset, it requires to be noted that while the petition had challenged order passed by the learned Tribunal as far as back on 05.08.2020, this Court had noted the aspect of the petitioner having given up his challenge as regards the substantial issue i.e. challenge to order of deemed resignation and whereas the petition was pressed only as regards the issue of retirement benefits.
3.4. As such, it is a trite position that a writ Court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is empowered to mould relief even beyond the prayers sought for to meet with the ends of justice in an appropriate case. In the instant case, while the petitioner had only sought to challenge an order passed by the Tribunal whereby his challenge to the order retiring him on deemed basis was rejected, yet, midway, the petitioner has given up his challenge and is only seeking of a consequential effect which the petitioner would be even otherwise entitled to if the order of deemed resignation becomes final between the parties.
3.5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said issue being integral and connected to the substantive issue, without directing the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition or entering into the technical aspect of asking the petitioner to modify the prayers etc., more particularly, since the said issue is a pure question of law, the aspect had been taken up. As such, as noted hereinabove, on the question of law, learned AGP could not produce any material to show that the law laid down by this Court is no more good law. Under such circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to consider the aspect of retiral benefits even in spite of no specific prayers being by the petitioner as regards the same.
4. Insofar as the legal question is concerned, at this stage, it would be apposite to refer to observations of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Vasantkumar Kesarbhai Parikh vs. State of Gujarat [Letters Patent Appeal No.935/2021, dated 22.10.2021], paragraph nos.6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 being relevant for the present purpose are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:-
- “6.1 The precise issue whether an employee who
