USHABEN J VYAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the matter was called out, unfortunately, again, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr M.D.Gohil has stated that the copy of the affidavit in reply and instructions are not with him. However, on perusing the affidavit in reply after taking a copy from the advocate of the other side, he read the objections raised in the affidavit in reply. Affidavit in rejoinder is also filed.

(2.) In so far as the material facts of the present petition are concerned, they not in dispute. The petitioner entered in service of the State Government in the Education Department on 2.1.51. Her services came to be transferred to Bombay State and thereafter, consequent upon the formation of Gujarat State, she was allocated to the State of Gujarat. She was allowed to voluntarily retire upon satisfaction of the eligibility criteria for the purpose of voluntary retirement from service with effect from 31.12.86. Thereafter, she went on making claims, time and again, by writing letters, by sending representations, by personal meetings etc. However, all her efforts ended in smoke. Therefore, she was constrained to file this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) There is also no dispute about the fact that she had put in 36 years of service and, thereafter, she has voluntarily retired as per the Government decision and policy. She has not been paid the amount of provident fund and final fixation of pension is also yet not done. She is getting only the provisional pension of Rs.1100.00. Likewise, the benefit of commutation is also not given to her.