IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6057 of 2021 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV ==========================================================

==========================================================

GIRDHARBHAI JIVRAJBHAI PADARIA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

KRISHNAN M GHAVARIYA(8133) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR. KURVEN DESAI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 4 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV Date : 06/10/2022

ORAL JUDGMENT

1 Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Kurven Desai, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 4, Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

2 The prayer in the petition is that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of leave encashment of 300 days unavailed leave and also for a direction to revise the pension as well as gratuity calculating from the date of initial appointment i.e. 18.02.1989.

3 As far as the first relief is concerned, as pointed by Mr.Ghavariya, learned counsel for the petitioner, the only stand of the respondent as reflected from the affidavit-in- reply filed by the Taluka Development Officer, Gondal Taluka Panchayat, is that as far as the benefit of leave encashment is concerned, the proceedings are pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, wherein, interim order is granted and there is Stay of the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 07.02.2022 in SLP No. 1505 and SLP 1011 of 2022. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, now by way of an order dated 01.09.2022 in Special Leave to Petition No. 7229 of 2022 has concluded the issue in favour of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the appellants of the State challenging the orders of the Division Bench have been dismissed.

4 Accordingly, the prayer for leave encashment is allowed. The respondents are directed to extend such benefits to the petitioner within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

5 The second issue is with regard to revising the pension and gratuity from the date of initial appointment. The stand of the respondent from the reply indicates that the same has been released in light of the order of the Tribunal which granted benefits only on completion of ten years in accordance with the policy Resolution dated

13.04.2009.

6 Two things need to be noted as far as this issue is concerned. The petitioner was an appellant before this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 624 of 2018. The appeal was decided by a Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Anant S. Dave & Biren A Vaishnav, JJ). That appeal arose out of an oral order dated 02.05.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge who held that the petitioner being a servant of the Gondal Taluka Panchayat cannot claim the benefit as panchayat servant. After recording the service history of the petitioner in the oral order dated 06.02.2019 recording the objection of the Panhayat, where also a specific objection was taken as to the entitlement including that of the past service, the Division Bench held as under:

“9 Having given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the facts on hand, Mr.Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent-Panchayat is not in a position to dispute the fact that the case of the appe