MULSHANKAR MOHANLAL NAYAK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP appearing for respondents no. 1 and 3 and Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for respondent no. 2 waive service of notice of rule. With the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) The petitioner, aged 83, has approached this court for a direction that the authorities be directed to revise his pension case in accordance with the order dtd. 13/3/2018.

(3.) Briefly stated it is the case of the petitioner that he joined service of the respondents in 1963 and retired in 1997 on attaining the age of superannuation. On 19/4/2021, while finalizing the pension case of the petitioner the Office of the Director of Pension and Provident Fund had raised an objection stating that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of pay fixation under Rule 41A of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules and also recovery was ordered. Representations were made by the petitioner for pay fixation. Thereafter on 9/3/2018, the respondent authorities passed an order stating that in view of the objections raised by the audit department the petitioner was granted the benefit of pay fixation. However, on 18/8/2018, the petitioner was informed that the respondent no. 2 has sent a proposal for revision of pension and gratuity to the Director of Pension and Provident Fund. In other words, it is the case of the petitioner that his pension is not being revised.