ISMAIL IBRAHIM Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. A.S. Supehia for the petitioner and Mr. N.D. Gohil, learned AGP for the respondents. This petition was admitted by this court by issuing rule thereon by order dated 23rd August, 1999 and it was made returnable on 2nd September, 1999.

(2.) In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the decision of the respondents in denying the pensionary benefits to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he worked with the first respondent as a daily wager from September, 1974 and from 19th June, 1984, he worked as a work charge employee and retired as such on 30th November, 1991. According to the petitioner, he completed more than ten years service and yet the benefit of pension has been denied to the petitioner only on the ground that the service rendered by the petitioner as a daily wager cannot be counted while counting qualifying service for the purpose of pension.

(3.) The respondents have filed reply to the present petition through one DM Shah working as Executive Engineer with the first respondent. In para 5 of the said reply, the deponent has averred that the petitioner was initially appointed as rojamdar in the year 1974 and he worked as such till 1983; from 1984, he has become eligible for being appointed as work charge employee and he was appointed as such and worked as such till 1991, upto his retirement and, therefore, according to the respondent no.1, length of the petitioner's service on the work charge establishment is less than ten years and the initial service s rendered by him as daily wager cannot be clubbed together as both are separate. In reply, the deponent has made a mention of one special civil application No. 3607 of 1982 filed before this court wherein judgment and order was delivered by this court against the State Government and, thereafter, the State Government has filed appropriate proceedings before the apex court and the apex court has granted stay in favour of the State of Gujarat and, therefore, according to the respondents, benefit of pension cannot be given to the petitioner while considering services rendered by him as a daily wager. Except these submissions, no other contentions have been raised by the deponent in his affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents.