ORAL JUDGMENT

[1] This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner for following reliefs:

“(b) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ and/or direction, directing the concerned Respondent/s to approve the case of the present Petitioner for Voluntary Retirement w.e.f. 30.06.2003 and also release the Pension w.e.f. 30.06.2003.”

(c) Pending admission and final disposal of the present Petition, Your Lordships be pleased to direct the concern Respondent/s to release provisional Pension in favour of the present Petitioner as per the prevailing norms and conditions.”

[2] By way of present present, the petition has claimed pension by treating him voluntarily retired from his services as he has completed 30 years of service.

[3] It is submitted that the petitioner had joined services with the respondent No.3-School of Architecture CEPT University and after serving for 30 years, applied for voluntary retirement from service on 30.06.2003. The application for VRS was on a personal ground due to family issue. Again on 01.11.2003, the petitioner addressed another letter seeking acceptance of is VRS.

[3.1] It is submitted that later on the petitioner made several representations for accepting of his VRS. Even the respondent No.3 forwarded the pension case of the petitioner to the then Directorate of Technical Education, now known as Commissionerate of Technical Education for approval. The Directorate had also forwarded the application of the petitioner to the respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 in response, addressed return communication for fulfilling certain essential conditions.

[3.2] It is submitted that the petitioner was in fact informed about his VRS being accepted by respondent w.e.f. 30.06.2003. Thereafter, respondent No.3 has addressed several Communications to the department to consider the case of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner and the respondent No.3 had complied with all the required formalities and therefore, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered. Ultimately, the petitioner on account of passage of long time, understood that that the case of the petitioner would not be considered and hence the present petition. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the pension is the right of the petitioner and as the petitioner has completed pensionable service, the case of the petitioner deserves consideration.

[3.3] Learned advocate has drawn attention of this Court to various communication between respondent Nos.3 and 4, wherein, the case of the petitioner was under consideration and therefore the right of the petitioner to claim pension was accepted by the Department.

[4] As against this, learned Assistant Government Pleader has opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner, who claims to have submitted that his VRS in the year 2003, has filed a petition after a delay of 13 years. Moreover, it is not evident as to whether the petitioner has attained age of superannuation or that his application for VRS has been accepted. It is submitted that at no stage, it is coming out on record that the case of the petitioner for VRS was ever accepted and the proposal was received at the relevant time from the respondent No.3.

[4.1] It is submitted that the petitioner has erroneously presumed that his VRS application is accepted and therefore he is required to be granted pension as if he has retired in the year 2003. In fact, the application for VRS was not in accordance with the requirement of Rule 49 of Gujarat Civil Service Pension Rules and therefore there was no VRS application in the eye of law and from the record it is submitted that after 2003, the petitioner had not joined the services and therefore the status of the petitioner whether he was in employment till the date of his superannuation, is under question.

[5] Learned advocate for respondent No.3 has simply submitted that the respondent No.3, who was the empl