STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HARSHADBHAI HARIBHAI BORISA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dtd. 28/6/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the present respondent - original petitioner.

(2.) Heard learned AGP Mr. Ronak Raval for the appellants and learned advocate, Mr. Vaibhav Vyas for the respondent.

(3.) It is the case of the original petitioner that pursuant to the advertisement inviting application for the appointment of various posts under the respondents on adhoc basis, the original petitioner applied for the post of Computer Programmer in the pay scale of Rs.2200.004000 and in pursuance thereto, the original petitioner appointed on the said post and he joined the services on 21/7/1986, however, his services were terminated in the month of October, 1991 but thereafter on the very same day by Notification dtd. 22/10/1991, the original petitioner came to be appointed on sanctioned vacant posts of Computer Programmer (Class-II). The original petitioner, thereafter, filed petition being Special Civil Application No.8094/1991 and prayed that his services may not be terminated till the regularly selected candidate is available. The original petitioner continued in service for more than 31 years without any break as regular GPSC candidate was not available. The original petitioner worked on the said post till his retirement i.e. upto 30/9/2020. It is also the case of the original petitioner that thereafter, he made representation before the original respondent authorities for the grant of benefit of pension. HOwever, the original respondent authorities rejected the said representation. The original petitioner, therefore, filed captioned petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge, by impugned order, allowed the said petition and the order of rejection of requst made by the petitioner is quashed and set aside and the learned Single Judge has observed that the petitioner is treated to be entitled for grant of pensionary and retiral benefits on the basis of he having rendered adhoc services, which have to be treated as qualifying services for the purposes of pension and retirement benefits. The original respondents - present appellants herein have, therefore, preferred the present appeal.