Pension rights constitute property and cannot be denied arbitrarily; employees with requisite service and contributions are entitled to such benefits under law.

JUDGEMENT

1. Civil Applications for bringing legal heirs on record and Civil Applications for condonation of delay are filed in Special Civil Application Nos.13014/2017, 13023/2017, 13037/2017 and 13038/2017.

2. Considering the averments made in Civil Applications for condonation of delay, the same are allowed and delay caused in preferring the Civil Applications for bringing legal heirs on record is ordered to be condoned. Civil Applications for delay are disposed of accordingly.

3. Civil Applications for bringing the legal heirs on record are also allowed and disposed of. Cause title be amended accordingly of the respective Special Civil Applications.

4. All these petitions are filed by the employees of Bhavnagar Municipality Corporation claiming pension and retirement benefits. As common questions arise for consideration, these petitions were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

5. The petitioners were employees of either erstwhile District Panchayat, Bhavnagar or Bhavnagar Municipality. The petitioners are denied pension and other retirement benefits by the respondents authorities on the ground that the petitioners are not entitled to such benefits because grant was not received from the State Government for payment of such benefits and the pension scheme of the Government is not applicable because the entire expenses would have to be borne by the Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and therefore, the employees of Transport Division and Nagar Prathmik Shikshan Samiti were denied the benefits of the pension scheme.

6. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Gautam Joshi assisted by learned Advocate Mr. Vyom Shah, learned advocate Mr. K.B. Pujara, learned advocate Mr. Jeet Y. Rajyaguru, and learned advocate Mr. Rajesh O. Gidia for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for the respondent Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, learned advocate Mr.Deepak N. Khanchandani for the respondents and learned Assistant Government Pleaders Mr.

K.M. Antani, Mr. Jayneel Paikh and Mr. Meet Thakkar for the respondent State.

7. It was submitted by the learned advocates for the petitioners that the petitioners were members of General Provident Fund (GPF) Scheme and GPF Contributions were being deducted by the respondent Municipality from their salary from time to time until their services came to an end and therefore, the petitioners were entitled to pension and other retirement benefits.

8. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Chief Officer v. Mohmad Irshad Husenbhai Baloch (judgment dated 3.02.2011 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.214/2011 and other allied matters) reported in 2011 SCC OnLine Guj 856 as well as the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Una Nagar Palika v. Chandrikaben w/d Bhurabhai S. Bhamat and others (judgment dated 6.12.2015 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1067/2015 and allied matters) reported in 2105 SCC OnLine Guj

6302. It was submitted that both these decisions were confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in decision in case of State of Gujarat v. Jayaben reported in 2013 SCC Online SC 1327 as well as decision in case of Una Nagar Palika v. Kaliben Balubhai Makwana reported in (2019) 12 SCC 340 respectively.

9. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in c