IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10012 of 2018 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT =============================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No √

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

HIRBAI WD/O LATE KASAMBHAI ISMAILBHAI SAMEJA & ANR.

Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF MORBI =============================================

Appearance:

DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR ANAND B GOGIA(5849) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1 MR BB GOGIA(5851) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1 MS KAJAL L KALWANI(6623) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1 MR HARIBHAI PATEL FOR MR DEEPAK P SANCHELA(2696) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 =============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT Date : 12/03/2026

JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Haribhai Patel, learned advocate, waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.

2. Heard Mr.Anand B. Gogia, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Haribhai Patel, learned advocate for the respondent.

3. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :

“A. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit the petition.

B. Respondent may please be directed by writ of mandamus or by any other appropriate writ, orders, directions to release the pension / family pension to the Petitioner from the date of retirement of deceased employee / husband of the petitioner and from the death of her husband along with interest at the rate of 9% and may further be pleased to direct to adjust / recover their amount of contribution of CPF / difference and gratuity, if any, from arrears of pension payable to the petitioner and may continue paying her family pension in accordance with pension scheme.”

SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE :

4. The short facts of the case appear to be that the husband of the original petitioner was serving in the respondent- Municipality and came to be retired on 29/02/1995. At that point of time, undisputedly, there was no pension scheme framed by the respondent. Later in point of time, a pension scheme and its rules were framed by the respondent- Municipality. As per Rule 3 of such Pension Rules, such pension rules came into effect from 01/04/1995 and it would apply to full time and permanent employees of the Corporation working as on 01/04/1995.

4.1 The public notices came to be issued by the respondent- Municipality on 26/02/1999 and 03/04/1999, calling upon the employees concerned to submit their option as to whether they are opting for the pension scheme or not.

4.2 The husband of the original petitioner appears to have submitted an option form on 23/03/1999. The respondent-

Municipality denied the case of the husband of the original petitioner when it passed an order on 09/10/2003, whereby the list of eligible employees was published. The reason for not granting the benefit of option of pension under the said pension rules to the husband of the petitioner was that he had already retired from service prior to 01/04/1995.

4.3 It appears that during his lifetime, the employee - husband of the petitioner, did not thought it fit to approach this Court by way of any petition. Furthermore, he died on 04/01/2006 and the present petition is filed in the year 2018 by his widow seeking pension and family pension from the respondent. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to show that prior to filing of this petition, the original petitioner ever approached the respondent-Municipality in regard to the claim of any pension or family pension, etc.

4.4 The original petitioner – widow died during pendency of this petition, survived by her legal heirs – children. Thus, present petition is pursued by children of deceased –

employee.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER :

5. Mr. Gogia, learned advocate for the petitioner, would submit that as