AMBALAL S PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave to amend the name and address of respondent no. 3. This is a petition for a direction to the respondents to consider the services rendered by the petitioner at Ladol and Diu in calculating his pensionary services and to pay the same with all difference since the date of his retirement with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher at Ladol Highschool, Ladol, Dist: Mahesana with effect from 19th June, 1945. He served there till 3.6.1964. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu and joined there with effect from 4.6.1964 and he joined as Assistant Teacher in Diu Government High School with effect from 4.6.1964 pursuant to the order date 12.5.1964. There is no break in his service and his services were continued till his retirement in the year 1982. The petitioner made serveral representations to the respondent no. 3 to consider his earlier services rendered at Ladol for pensionary benefits. He also made a representation to the Leutenant Governor of Goa on 27th November, 1981. He also sent a representation to the Director of Education to take further action on it. On 28th May, 1982, the Government of Goa issued one office memo containing instructions of Union Government to all the State Governments regarding allocation of pensionary liability in respect of temporary services rendered under Government of India and State Government. Thereafter, the petitioner again made a representation to the authorities and he also met the authorities concerned in person, but no action was taken by them. The respondents are not taking any action on representastion nor they are considering his previous services in calculating the pensionary services. Hence, he has a right under the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and that constitutional provisions have been violated and discriminated in Government service. He has not been paid due pension after considering the entire services rendered by him. As per Rules and regulations, the petitioner is entitled to full pension for maximum number of year taking into account the services rendered by him at Ladol and Diu. Both the Governments are therefore, liable to pay pension, but no action has been taken nor any response has been given.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is also entitled for the pension for the services rendered by him from 19.6.1945 to 3.6.1964 rendered at Ladol Highschool, Dist: Mahesana and both the periods should be clubbed and he is entitled for the pensionary benefits the entire services rendered by him. The respondents have given the pensionary benefits regarding services rendered for the latter period. He also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R.K.Gupta vs. Union of India and others reported in 1988 SCC (Labour and service), 881 wherein it has been held as under: