NANJIBHAI JIVABHAI PARMAR Vs. PRESIDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(2.) CONTROVERSY is in a very narrow compass. Petitioner was working as Safai Kamdar since 28th December 1963 with respondent No.1 Panchayat. Petitioner retired from service on 29th February 2000 on attaining age of superannuation. Petitioner put in about 36 years of continuous service. Respondent No.1, i.e. Babra Gram Panchayat is now converted to Babra Nagarpalika. After retirement, petitioner approached the authorities for pensionary benefits, as his co-employees were getting the same benefit. In para-2.5 of the petition, there are necessary averments to this effect. It appears that there is one communication dated 18th February 2001 addressed by District Panchayat, Amreli to Taluka Development Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Babra. In the said letter, it has been informed that three employees working with Babra Nagar Panchayat have applied for pensionary benefits and their cases have been placed for consideration. Name of petitioner is at Sr. No.2. In the said communication, it has been clarified that as per the Government resolution of the State Government in its Panchayats Department dated 17.10.1983, all those employees appointed after 01.04.1963 and before 11.02.1969 and appointed in the sanctioned set up of the State Government are entitled to draw pension. In the said communication, it is further clarified that the employee at Sr Nos.1 and 3 are not entitled because they have been appointed after 11.02.1969, whereas employee at Sr. No.2, though appointed before 11.02.1969, i.e. referring to the present petitioner appears to have obtained some order from the Labour Court, Rajkot as regards his appointment and therefore, it cannot be said that he was appointed on the regular set up of the State Government. On this count, pensionary benefit has been denied.

(3.) IT is further submitted that the petitioner is entitled for pension and arrears of pension from the date of retirement, i.e. 29th February 2000 with 18% interest. For this purpose, reliance has been placed on the reported judgment of this Court in the matter of Jivraj Vashrambhai Kanjaria Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., reported in 2005 (part-1) GLR 681. For the present, I am not passing any orders in this regard because I want the authorities to first fix pension. After the requisite amount of pension is fixed, it will be open for the petitioner thereafter to pray for the arrears of pension with necessary interest on the same from the date of retirement. I am keeping this liberty open for the petitioner after necessary orders are passed in this regard.