The Court established that ad hoc service may qualify for pension benefits under specific rules, regardless of temporary status.

ORDER

In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the request and consent of the parties appearing through their respective learned advocates, the petition was taken up for final consideration today.

1.1 Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manan Mehta waives service of Rule for the respondents.

1.2 Heard learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

2. It is for the following prayers that the present petition came to be filed, “(i) to declare and hold that the petitioner is entitled for the grant of retirement benefits such as pension, gratuity, leave encashment, etc. upon his retirement from service' (ii) to direct the respondent authorities to finalize the pension case of the petitioner and make payment of pension, gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of pension etc. to the petitioner;

(iii) to make payment of interest on the delayed payment of retirement dues of the petitioner;”

3. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Lecturer on 10.3.1987 under Gujarat Education Services and was ordered to be posted at Sir Bhavsinhji Polytechnic Institute, Bhavnagar, whose appointment was made by the state government after undertaking process of selection. The appointment of the petitioner was on ad hoc basis. The order of appointment inter alia provided that he would be continued until the regularly selected candidate from the Gujarat Public Service Commission was available or till the period of one year, whichever was earlier. On 31.3.1989, the petitioner became Lecturer and came to be appointed in the same college. This appointment was again on the similar terms as above.

3.1 It is the uncontrovered case of the petitioner that his services continued even after expiry of period of one year mentioned in the letter of appointment. It, however, appears that services of the petitioner came to be terminated on 4.9.1991. The petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 8994 of 1991 and this court granted interim relief on 26.12.1991 to the petitioner. The petitioner alongwith other similarly situated persons who are also relieved, came to be reinstated in service.

3.2 It appears that again on 28.1.2011 services of the petitioner came to be terminated which led the petitioner to file yet another Special Civil Application No. 1290 of 2011 alongwith other similarly situated persons. The said petition came to be disposed of on 7.9.2011 alongwith Letters Patent Appeal and other cognate petitions.

3.3 It is stated by the petitioner that during the pendency of the said petitions, the steps were taken by the government to fill-up the posts. The court also passed interim order on 21.6.2011 whereby the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated. The petitioner joined services on 24.6.2011. Thus, in the continuous service as ad hoc Lecturer, there were two interruptions which were for 26 days in the year 1999 and for about five months in the year 2011. The petitioner has put in total service of 30 years and 9 months servuces excluding above break for the short duration. The petitioner retired upon attaining the age of superannuation on 14.6.2018. He was asked to submit details for finalisating his pension papers. The petitioner submitted necessary details on 12.2.2016.

3.4 It is the case of the petitioner that he thereafter made representation on 30.11.2016. The petitioner was informed that guidance was sought from the Head Quarter. The petitioner made yet another representation on 9.2.2017, but nothing had been yielded. It is the specific c