IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20585 of 2016 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE ===============================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No

1	Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?	No
2	To be referred to the Reporter or not ?	No
3	Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?	No
4	Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?	No

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

RAJENDRA CHANDRAPRASAD TRIVEDI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)

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

Appearance:

SAN ASSOCIATES LLP(8655) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR. ROHAN SHAH, AGP,for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR MITUL K SHELAT(2419) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,4 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 24/11/2022

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 clai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document