DEVUBHA TEJUBHA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioner, who was employed as a daily wager by the Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings Division, Surendranagar and was working under respondent no.3, the Deputy Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings Sub Division, Surendranagar since 1970. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as a work charged by respondent no.2 by an order dated 7.1.1987 and the petitioner retired on 30.11.1996, on reaching the age of superannuation. The present petition is required to be filed as the petitioner denied the pensionary benefits. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner filed an application being Gratuity Application No.57/97 before the competent authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 at Surendranagar, which came to be granted in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) . It is the case of the petitioner that respondents nos.2 and 3 produced all relevant papers/ record before the authority and on perusal of the same the controlling authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner at the time of superannuation had completed more than 26 years of service. However, the petitioner is not granted benefits of pension and therefore, the petitioner made an application on 3.3.1997, a copy of which is produced at Annexure 'C' to the petition. Said application was not proceeded with by the respondents. The petitioner learnt that his application was not proceeded further on the ground that he had not completed 10 years of service from 7.1.1987 till the date of his superannuation, i.e. in the year 1996. It is the case of the petitioner that his case is covered by various circulars and resolutions passed by the State Government prescribing for computation of qualifying service. The petitioner also submitted that in fact the petitioner has put in the service without there being any break and that the nature of the post on which the petitioner was appointed is of permanent nature.

(3.) It is also submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner was kept as a daily wager and it was only in the year 1987 that he was made work charged and therefore, for no fault on the part of the petitioner that the petitioner is considered not entitled for the pensionary benefits. The petitioner submitted that the petitioner was entitled for the benefits of pension under Circular dated 17.10.1988 and that the qualifying service of the petitioner is required to be computed in light of the contents of the circular dated 24.2.1966.