JETHALAL DAHYALAL VIRAMGAMI Vs. STATE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. M.D. Rana, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Oza, learned AGP for respondents no.1 and

(2.) ­ the State Authorities. Respondent no.3 is Central Government Authority and is represented by Mr. P.K. Shukla, learned advocate. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner claims pension. For this purpose, State as well as Central ­ both authorities are joined as party respondents. From the pleadings, it also transpires that the pension scheme framed under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is also explored. At the outset, learned advocate for the petitioner stated that the petitioner may not be entitled to pension from the Central Government and State Government both and therefore, to make this clear, it is conceded that the petitioner is claiming pension from the State Government and not from the Central Government. Thus to that extent, i.e. claim of the petitioner from the Central Government is not gone into.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the claim of the petitioner is from the State Authority. The service conditions of the State employees is governed by the Rules of the State Government, which, at the relevant time, were called the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 ('BCSR' for short) or renamed Rules called the Gujarat Civil Services Rules, 2002 ('GCSR' for short). It is undisputed that as per these rules, an employee has to have atleast ten years of service at his credit to make him eligible for pension. The stand of the authorities is to the effect that since the petitioner has not put in ten years pensionable service, he is not granted pension. At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not claiming pension under the Rules but is claiming pension from Government under Government Resolution dated 08.01.1976. This contention of learned advocate for the petitioner can not be accepted that even if he is not entitled under the Rules, let his case be considered under some other executive instructions of the Government. Further even the said Government Resolution does not confer that benefit as is sought to be read by the petitioner. Further the petitioner had put his case by saying that he should have been paid pension either from the State Government or from the Central Government and when it was indicated that the petitioner must make his position clear as to from which authority he claims pension, only then it is indicated that it is the State Government from whom the pension is claimed. Thereafter, when it is indicated that under the Rules, the petitioner should have put in ten years pensionable service, on behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that if not under the Rules, let him be paid the pension under the resolution of the Government dated 08.01.1976. If the contents of Government Resolution dated 08.1.1976, which is placed on record by the petitioner, is seen, it regulates as to how the service of a daily wager employee is to be regulated. It does not confer any independent right of getting pension, then the State Rules in that regard. Thus, the Government Resolution dated 08.01.1976 does not take the case of the petitioner any further and the claim of the petitioner needs to be rejected.