ORAL JUDGMENT

1. With the consent of the learned advocate for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. RULE returnable forthwith. Ms.Surbhi Bhati learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents.

3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayer of the petitioner is to declare and held that the petitioners are at par with other pensioners as defined under the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 and are entitled to all the benefits which are available to them and they be made available to the petitioners. By a subsequent amendment made in the petition, the prayer also is to quash and set aside the Government Resolution dated 21.03.2020 to the extent of it being effective from 01.03.2020, denying arrears prior to that date the case of the petitioners is that the petitioners joined the services of the State Government in Food and Civil Supplies Department on various dates on creation of the Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation on 02.10.1980, the petitioners were sent on deputation to the Corporation since the activities were assigned to the Corporation. In the year 1986, the State Government decided to absorb the employees sent on deputation to the corporation permanently. Accordingly the petitioners were permanently absorbed in the corporation. Upon absorption, the employees including the petitioners were treated to have been retired from government service with effect from 04.10.1988 or 30.06.1989 as the case may be, the petitioners were permitted to commute full pension by the authorities of the State Government on their retirement. The State Government on 23.04.1998 decided to grant the benefit of restoration of commuted portion of pension of the Government employees who have been absorbed upon their completion of 15 years of service so commutation period. The resolution is placed on record.

4. Ms.Pandya would invite the attention of the Court to a resolution dated 09.06.1999, where it was observed in the resolution that the Government after careful consideration has decided to grant the benefit of restoration of 1/3rd commuted portion of pension after 15 years from the date of commutation. Accordingly the process of restoration of 1/3rd of commuted pension was undertaken and pension payment orders were issued in favour of the petitioners. Pension of the petitioners was revised in the year 2010.

4.1 It is the case of the petitioners that the pensioner is entitled to restoration of his commuted part of pension on completion of 15 years of service of his retirement and he would be getting full monthly pension thereafter. If the case of the petitioners, towards the absorbed pensioners, it was only 1/3rd of the portion of the pension which was restored, that too after the respondents accepted the same after litigation. As far as restoration of the 2/3rd remaining part of pension is concerned, Ms.Pandya would rely on the resolution of the Central Government dated 23.06.2017 which was passed by the Central Government pursuant to the decision of the Madras High Court dated 02.08.2007 so confirmed by the Apex Court in the order dated

01.09.2016.

4.2 It is the case of the petitioners that they are therefore entitled to restoration of full pension that is the remaining part of 2/3rd pension. Representations made from time to time were not decided. She would rely on Rules 101 and Rule 51 of the pension rules and submit that there is ab obligation on the pension sanctioned the authority to restore commuted pension in the event the petitioner completed 50 years of service. She would also fall back on the definition of the term “pensioners” as defined under the pension rules.

5. It appears that pending this petition, the State Government came out with the resolution dated 21.03.2020, however, restricting the benefit of restoration of full pension with effect from

01.03.2020.

6. Ms.Surbhi Bhati learned AGP would rely on the affidavit in reply filed by the