HARSHADBHAI M SADHU Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed to quash and set aside the decision of the respondent authorities to retire the petitioner before attaining the superannuation age of 60 years as per the Rules and to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to complete his service tenure as per the Rules, i.e. till he attained the age of superannuation.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed on the post of Stenographer Grade-II by the respondent Corporation vide order dated 21.9.1970. The petitioner was then promoted as Stenographer Grade-I and then on the post of Assistant Manager vide order dated 29.3.1985. The petitioner has averred that the service condition of the petitioner is governed by the Rules, called as "Gujarat Agro Industries Corporation Limited Service Rules, 1969". As per the said Rules, superannuation age of the petitioner is prescribed as 60 years. The petitioner has further averred that the pay structure of the employees of the respondent Corporation is on the line of the pay structure of the employees of the State Government and the State Government has adopted the revised pay structure for its employees, commonly known as Revision of Pay Rules, 1998, which came to be made effective from 1.1.1996 on the basis of the 5 th Pay Commission. Almost all the different Boards and Corporations are following the pay structure as revised by the State Government for its employees with effect from 1.1.1996. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondent Corporation with concurrence of the State Government decided to extend the benefits of revised pay scale to its employees with effect from 1.1.1996 as package deal. Decision of the Corporation was circulated amongst the employees. As per one of the conditions prescribed in the package deal, superannuation age for Class-I, Class-II and Class-III employees shall be 58 years and for Class-IV employees, superannuation age shall be 60 years. Thus, as per the package deal, superannuation age of the petitioner shall be 58 years if the petitioner were to accept the said package deal. As per the package deal, option form stipulates consent of the employees who accepts the revised pay scale as per the package deal. It is the case of the petitioner that without getting full information of the benefits of the package deal, the petitioner was not inclined to opt for revision of pay as per the package deal and therefore, the petitioner preferred to continue in the pre-revised pay scale till he reached the age of superannuation. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondent Corporation decided to implement the package deal for all its employees irrespective of the consent and decided to retire the petitioner as per the said package deal with effect from 30.11.1998 considering the age of superannuation as provided in the package deal. The main grievance of the petitioner in the petition is that since the petitioner has not given consent, as required in the prescribed option form, the petitioner cannot be said to have opted for the package deal and therefore, the respondent Corporation could not have unilaterally taken decision that the petitioner had opted for the package deal.

(3.) WHEN this matter was taken up for hearing, learned advocate Ms. P.J. Davawala appearing for the respondent Corporation pointed out that learned Single Judge of this Court has rejected the similar challenge made, in this petition, by dismissing the petition, being Special Civil Application No.10243 of 1998, vide order dated 19.12.2012.