RAMANBHAI NAGARJI NAYAK Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent no. 1 - Commissioner, Gujarat Housing Board to obtain from the petitioner an option in the prescribed form and to apply Regulation Annexure - "A" and immediately confer on the petitioner the retirement benefits which he is entitled as per Resolution Annexure - "A".

(2.) The petitioner joined his service with the respondent no. 1 as workcharge "Mistry" on 1-7-1964 and was promoted to the post of Workcharge Assistant from 20-7-1990. Thereafter the petitioner retired on 1-6-1991. Thus, the petitioner has put in service for about 27 years. The pension scheme has been introduced for the employees of the Gujarat Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as the "respondent Board" for brevity) on 13-7-1992 with effect from 1-4-1990. Prior to this scheme, the employees of the respondent Board were eligible for retirement benefits as per Contributory Provident Fund/Employees Provident Fund Scheme. After retirement, the petitioner was paid pensionary benefits 52,248/- towards Provident Fund, Rs.10,872.00 towards gratuity and Rs.4026.00 as family pension. The provident fund amount includes the contribution of the respondent Board and contribution made by the employee - petitioner. The pension scheme has been introduced in exercise of power u/s 74 of the Gujarat Housing Board Act, 1961 with previous sanction of the State Government. The respondent Board made a regulation with a view to regulate to grant of pension and other retirement benefits to its employees and that scheme has been made applicable with effect from 1-4-1990. The employees who were in existence on 1-4-1990 or retired thereafter, they were made eligible for pension scheme. As per the Revised Pension Rules, the employees of the respondent Board including the petitioner filed their option to that effect and gave undertaking to return the entire benefits they have taken from the respondent Board.

(3.) The respondent Board is required to inform the employees to tender the option on or before 30-8-1992. The employees who performed their service as workcharge establishment were not informed about the Regulation and Government Resolution Annexure-B and those employees were not asked by the respondent Board or any head of the office of the respondent Board to obtain option from such workcharge employees. The petitioner sent a letter to the Commissioner of the respondent Board on 13-9-1993 stating therein that though he is entitled to the retirement benefits as per Regulation Annexure-A, no option has been taken from him by any officer of the respondent Board. The respondent Board informed the petitioner that the matter is under active consideration before the Government and till the date no final decision is taken and nothing can be done as requested by the petitioner. The petitioner was granted retirement benefits as per the scheme prevalent at the relevant time. The the respondent Board in exercise of powers u/s 74 (C) of the Gujarat Housing Board framed Regulation which covers the case of the petitioner. An inaction on the part of the respondent Board, to confer the retirement benefits after obtaining option from the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The pension scheme has not made any distinction between the administrative employees and workcharge employees. Even there is no distinction between the permanent and temporary employees of the respondent Board and the pensionary benefits have been granted as a matter of right to each and every employee of the the respondent Board.