JUDGMENT :

MAULIK J.SHELAT, J.

[1] With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the present matter is taken up for hearing.

[2] Heard Mr. Rishabh Acharya, learned advocate for Ms. Harshal N. Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner as also Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned AGP for respondent - State, at length.

[3] RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State.

[4] This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-

“(a) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, and be please to declare that the petitioner is entitle for all his retirement dues and accordingly direct the respondents, their servant and agent to make the payment to the petitioner of all his retirement dues for which the petitioner is entitle;

(b) That Your Lordship may be please to direct the respondents, their servant and agent to pay 12% interest on the total amount of retirement dues to the petitioner;

(c) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to direct the respondents, their servant and agent to produce a statement of retirement dues with 12% interest for which the petitioner is legally entitled before this Hon'ble Court and on production of the said statement further be please to direct the respondents, their servant and agent to disburse the said amount in favour of petitioner;

(d) Grant such other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

[5] At the outset, it is required to be observed that this matter was earlier decided by my predecessor vide order dated 24.01.2022, whereby this petition was dismissed. The said decision was carried before the Division Bench of this Court where also the petitioner was remained unsuccessful in convincing the Division Bench. Finally, he approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of Civil Appeal No.12247 of 2024 [arising out of SLP (C) No.19195 of 2022], vide its order dated 05.11.2024, the Hon’ble Apex Court has quashed and set aside the orders passed by my predecessor as well as of the Division Bench of this Court and remanded the matter back to this Court for its fresh adjudication.

SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE

[6] The petitioner was appointed on 03.09.1975 and due to his long absence from service, as per Rule 16 sub-rule (2) (a) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2002 (for short ‘the Rules, 2002’), the respondent, vide its order dated 05.09.2014, considered such absence as deemed resignation w.e.f. 21.10.2009.

[6.1] The petitioner appears to have made representation prior to filing of this petition whereby requested the respondent – authority to grant him retiral benefits. Since the respondents have not responded to such request, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER

[7] Mr. Rishabh Acharya, learned advocate for Ms. Harshal N. Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the issue germane in the matter is squarely covered by two decisions of the Division Bench of this Court and as per such decisions, the petitioner is entitled to receive retiral benefits, like gratuity, pension and other retiral benefits.

[7.1] It is submitted that as per the law laid down by this Court, even in a case of deemed resignation, as per the Rule 16 sub-rule (2) (a) of the Rules, 2002, the petitioner is entitled to receive all retirement benefits.

[7.2] To buttress his arguments, he has referred and relied upon the following two decisions: -

I. Letters Patent Appeal No.984 of 2018, decided on 25.07.2018 in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Pravinlal Kalyandas Rana

II. Letters Patent Appeal No.935 of 2021, decided on 22.10.2021 in the case of Vasantkumar Kesarbhai Parikh Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors

[7.3] Making the above submissions, Mr.