HANSABEN B.UPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. J.D. Ajmera, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Neeraj Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 State Authorities and Mr. R.A. Mishra, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 4 is served.

(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner had joined the service as a trained teacher with respondent No. 4 school on 01.06.1972. It is stated that in the year 1999, the petitioner had completed about 27 years of service and she opted for voluntary retirement. The request of the petitioner to permit her to retire voluntarily was duly accepted by the Competent Authority. It is submitted that at the relevant time, there was no pension scheme in force, covering employees of the schools where the petitioner was serving and therefore the petitioner was not entitled to claim pension. It is stated that, subsequently, Government extended the benefit of pension even to the teachers of Grant-in-aid Private Recognized Primary Schools vide Government Resolution dated 06.04.2002. It is with retrospective effect from 01.01.1997 and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to claim pension, which is claimed by the petitioner which is denied by the respondent authorities and therefore she has filed this petition. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court dated 14.03.2006 in Special Civil Application No. 7109 of 2005 and consequential instructions issued by the Government in the form of Government Resolution dated 13.07.2006. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken the Court through the documents, including the extract of the service book of the petitioner which is on record. It is contended that, in view of this material, the denial by the respondent authorities is illegal and arbitrary and respondents be directed to pay pension to the petitioner.

(3.) Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Neeraj Soni on behalf of the Authorities of the Government has vehemently contended that the petitioner is not entitled to pension and the denial by the respondent authorities is just and proper and no interference be made by this Court. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has also referred to and relied upon two affidavit in replies dated 26.09.2005 and 06.02.2013 filed by the authorities to contest this petition.