The Court ruled that employees on adhoc service qualify for pension under Rule 25 of the Gujarat Pension Rules, affirming previous judgments that support this interpretation.

IA ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. D. M. Devnani for the applicant – original petitioner No.3, learned AGP Ms. Tanushree Shrimal for the respondent-State and learned Advocate Ms. Janvi Sonagara for learned Advocate Mr. D.G. Chauhan for the respondent-4 University.

2. Learned Advocate Mr. Devnani would submit that since vide an order dated 12.02.2024, this Court had directed that the main writ petition to be heard with Special Civil Application Nos. 11967 of 2022 and 12201 of 2022, he has moved the present application for appropriate orders as has been passed by this Court in the above writ petitions vide an interim order.

3. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Devnani and having regard to the similarity of facts, more particularly since the observations in interim order dated 12.02.2024 passed by this Court would apply with full force to the case of the applicant herein, therefore this Court is inclined to accept the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Devnani. Paragraphs No. 3 to 7 of the order dated 12.02.2024 passed in Special Civil Application No. 11967 of 2022 and allied matter, are reporduced hereinbelow for benefit.

“3. By way of these petition, the petitioners, who were working with the respondent University on adhoc basis, have inter alia raised a grievance as regards non-grant of pension and other retiral benefits, considering the total length of services of the present petitioners.

4. Having regard to the submissions made by learned Advocates for the respective parties, while it would appear that the petitioners are basing their claim upon the interpretation of Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, which defines qualifying services, on the other hand, learned Advocate Mr.Chauhan for respondent No.2 is contesting such claim more particularly on the ground that the petitioners, not having been regularized in service, would not be entitled to pensionary benefits. 5. It would appear that the issue with regard to entitlement of the employees in adhoc service for pensionary benefits is no more res integra. A learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.20185 of 2018 dated 18.10.2019 had, inter alia relying upon an earlier decision of this Court in case of Bahadur Hoshi Kotwal vs. State of Gujarat ( SCA No.19042 of 2017 dt. 7.5.2019), come to a conclusion that since Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules 2002 does not envisage adhoc service as being a prohibited category i.e. a category service under which would not render the employee liable for pension, therefore, the employee had been deemed to be entitled for pension. Paragraphs 5 to 6 being relevant for the present purpose are reproduced herein below for benefit :-

“5. In Bahadur Hoshi Kotwal vs. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No. 19042 of 2017 decided on 7.5.2019 similar issue came up for consideration. The claim of the petitioner for pension etc. was opposed on the ground that petitioner's services were ad hoc.

5.1 Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, deals with the qualifying service for the purpose of pension. This rule extracted in its relevant part, reads as under, “Rule-25. Qualifying Service : Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a Government employee, means and includes, -

(i) all service including service on probation rendered on a regular establishment in any capacity whether, temporary or permanent, interrupted or continuous but it shall not include -

(a) service in non-pensionable establishment, (b) service paid from contingencies, (c) service rendered in d