LAWS(GJH)-2001-8-101

MADHUKAR T BAPAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On August 27, 2001
Madhukar T Bapat Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has come with the case that he was initially appointed as a Junior Research Investigator on 21.9.61 with Agro Economic Research Centre under Sardar Patel University. It is submitted that this Agro Economic Research Centre is a part and parcel of the Sardar Patel University. At the time of petitioner's retirement on 1.7.91 he was working as a Senior Research Assistant. At that time, the last pay drawn by the petitioner was Rs.3825.00- per month. It is submitted that the pay scales of the employees of the University and the Centre, where the petitioner was working, was revised in the year 1986 with effect from 1.1.86 and they were offered revision accordingly.

(2.) It has been further submitted that after the revision of the pay scale with effect from 1.1.86, the upper limit of the gratuity in case of pension holders was revised to Rs.1,00,000/-- with effect from 1.1.86 by a Government Resolution dated 31.7.87. However, no decision was taken with regard to such increase with regard to the upper limit of the gratuity in case of those, who are members of Contributory Provident Fund and the question remained under consideration of the Government. So far as employees of the Agro Economic Research Centre are concerned, no option with regard to the pension was available to them as other employes of the University and the only option available to the workers working in Agro Economic Research Centre was Contributory Provident Fund. The petitioner was a member of the Contributory Provident Fund till the time of his retirement and was paid retiral benefits accordingly, including gratuity at the last pay drawn by him i.e. Rs.3825.00- per month. It has been further submitted that the Government decided to raise the upper limit of gratuity in case of the members of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme by Government Resolution dated 17.9.91 raising it from Rs.36000.00- to Rs.75000.00- and this upper limit was further revised by yet another Government Resolution dated 19.1.93 from Rs.75,000.00- to Rs.1,00,000.00. Thus the upper limit of the gratuity was raised to Rs.1,00,000.00- by the Government Resolution dated 19.1.93 in case of the members of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme whereas the upper limit for gratuity in case of the pension holders was raised to Rs.1,00,000.00- from 1.1.86. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present Special Civil application claiming that in case of the members of the Contributory Provident Fund holders also the gratuity should be paid at the upper limit as was made applicable to the pension holders and that the treatment, as has been meted out to the members of the Contributory Provident Fund, is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Merely because the decision to raise the upper limit of the gratuity was taken in September 1991 and again in January 1993 i.e. the date after the retirement of the petitioner i.e. 1.7.91, he has been wrongly deprived of the higher amount of gratuity. This Special Civil Application was filed on 23.9.93, notice was issued on 24.9.93 returnable on 19.10.93. Rule was issued after notice to the other side on 16.8.94. By this time, this petition has remained pending for a period little short of 8 years,but none of the respondents have filed any reply. However, Mr.K.M.Parikh, learned AGP, has submitted that these were the Government Resolutions meant for only Government servants and, therefore, the petitioner, being an employee of Research Centre controlled by the University,could not claim benefit, which was extended to Government servants. He has further submitted that even if these Resolutions are found to be applicable to the employes of the University and Research Centre, no benefit could be given to the petitioner because he had already retired on 1.7.91, prior to the date of the issue of the Government Resolutions dated 17.9.91 and 19.1.93. A reading of the Government Resolution dated 17.9.91, makes it clear that the question under consideration was with regard to the enhancement of the maximum limit of death cum retirement gratuity to the employees of the University and Colleges, who had opted to remain under Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. Similar is the position with regard to the contents of the Government Resolution dated 19.1.93. It is, therefore, clear that these two Resolutions were with regard to the employees of the Universities and Colleges. Therefore, such Resolutions were applicable to the employees of the Universities and the Colleges and consequently to the employees of the Research Institute Respondent No.5 herein. Therefore, the first submission made by Mr. K.M.Parikh has no substance and the same is rejected.

(3.) His next submission is that the benefit under these Resolutions could not be claimed with retrospective effect by the petitioner because he has retired on 1.7.91 i.e. prior to the date on which these Government Resolutions were passed. This argument has no substance for the following reasons:-