MADHUSINH JUWANSINH PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .The present petition is filed by the petitioner for the relief to the effect that the respondents be directed to sanction the pension of the petitioner as per the pension rules of the State Government applicable to the petitioner. The petitioner had also prayed for the interim relief to the effect that the respondents be directed to deposit the pension of the petitioner from the date of his retirement i.e., 7-12-1988 till today before this Court and on such deposit being made, the petitioner be permitted to withdraw the same and also a direction to the effect that the respondents will pay the pension to the petitioner regularly every month. The notice is issued on 15th March, 2000 making the same returnable on 27th March, 2000. At the time of issuing the notice, the Court directed that the concerned respondent shall fix the pension and place the calculation on the record about the amount payable to the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, Mr. Digant Joshi, learned Asst. Government Pleader appearing for Mr. S. P. Hasurkar, learned Addl. Government Pleader filed an Affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent No. 3-Executive Engineer, Kadana. Mr. Joshi also placed the calculation on record. However, Mr. Joshi submitted that according to the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled for any pension in view of the resolution No. S/9592/665/38/A dated 30th December, 1996 passed by Narmada Water Resources Department. A copy of which was also placed on record along with the affidavit-in-reply.

(2.) . The learned Advocate, Mr. Mukesh R. Shah, for the petitioner moved a draft amendment which was allowed on 4th of May, 2000. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid impugned Government Resolution dated 30th of December, 1996 by this draft amendment. It is the case of the petitioner that the resolution is passed by the government without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and that the same, being in violation of the principles of natural justice, is required to be quashed and set aside by this Court. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that by the impugned resolution, the services of the petitioner for 1 year and 7 months, i.e., after the petitioner had attained the age of 60 years, is ordered not to be treated for the purpose of pensionable job.

(3.) . The learned Advocate for the petitioner has set out in the draft amendment in para-4A as under :