SURYAKANTA CHIMANLAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Ronak Rawal, learned AGP for the State authorities and Mr. Saurabh Mehta learned advocate for Nanavati & Nanavati, for respondent no.3- Administrative Officer of Ahmedabad Municipal School Board.

(2.) THE petitioner has retired as a teacher on 31.10.1993. He had initially joined the service of the District Panchayat, Panchmahals as an Assistant Teacher on 04.09.1954 and he served there upto 01.08.1965. From 02.08.1965 the petitioner served as an Assistant Teacher with respondent no.3 authority. He retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.1993. The petitioner is paid pension considering his service from 02.08.12965 to 31.10.1993. In this petition, it is prayed that even the earlier service which was rendered with District Panchayat, Panchmahals, should have been treated as continuous service and the petitioner ought to have been paid pension accordingly.

(3.) LEARNED AGP Mr. Rawal by referring to the affidavit-in- reply contended that, since there was no NOC granted from the District Education Committee, Panchmahal, the petitioner can not claim continuity. The stand reflected in the affidavit- in-reply does not stand in consonance with the policy of the Government as contained in Circular dated 28.08.1990 which is on record, since as per the said Circular it is the NOC of the concerned school would be necessary and not of the District Education Committee. Further, learned Assistant Government Pleader is not in a position to dispute the proposition of law as referred above, which was even otherwise the policy of the Government. Under these circumstances, the denial by the authorities to treat the entire service of the petitioner as pensionable service can not be held to be legal and the stand of the authorities also needs to be rejected.