JAYPRAKASH RATILAL BRAHMBHATT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned advocate for the petitioners is absent. However, considering the nature of prayer made in the petition and the issue being covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Court with the assistance of learned Assistant Government Pleader proceed with the matter for final disposal as the petitioners are retired senior citizens and the matter pertains to the pensionary benefits by considering the length of service prior to the date of their regularization. From the pleadings, it is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were serving as Workcharged/Rojamdar in the office of the respondents since last more than 31 to 38 years. The petitioners have served the respondents continuously and uninterruptedly. The petitioners have served respondents uninterruptedly and continuously as provided under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the petitioners were extended benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 after 10 years and more. It is submitted that while counting the pensionary benefits of the petitioners, their services have been counted from the date, they have been made permanent pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and hence, the services of the petitioners have been counted after deducting initial 10 years and more of service from their total services. It is also submitted that the petitioners have not abandon the work at any point of time and they were always ready and willing to work, may be on some occasion work is not provided to the petitioners by respondents, it is not the fault of the petitioners.

(2.) It is also submitted that though the petitioners have been placed in pay scale in pursuance to Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, petitioners have been discriminated while extending other benefits like regular employees of the State Government. It is submitted that though at the time of retirement 300 leaves have been standing in the account of the petitioners, neither petitioners have been informed to avail the said leaves, nor at the time of retirement, petitioners were paid leave encashment. It is submitted that in case of other similarly situated employees, respondents do extend benefit of leave encashment. The reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in various oral orders which are annexed at Annexure-B (Collectively).

(3.) Learned Assistant Government Pleader states that though the issue with regards to considering the length of service to include the service rendered even prior to regularization is decided, yet the factual assertion in individual case of the petitioners will have to be undertaken by the department individually.