RAMESHBHAI CHHAGANLAL MANDAVIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed challenging inaction on the part of the respondents- authorities for not grant of retiral benefits.

(2.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Krishnan Ghavariya for the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner was appointed as daily wager peon on 29/8/1984. Thereafter, he was terminated from services on 8/11/1989. Against the order of termination, the petitioner preferred reference being LCR No.59 of 1990, before the Labour Court, Rajkot, whereby, the Labour Court by order dated 15.002.2001 directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner on original post with continuity of service with 40% back wages. The order dtd. 15/2/2001, by the Labour Court in Reference (LCR) No.59 of 1990 was challenged by the respondent preferring a Writ Petition being Special Civil Application No.5396 of 2001. This Court while partly allowing Special Civil Application No.5396 of 2001, directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, however, back wages were quashed and set aside. Pursuant to order dtd. 20/12/2005 in Special Civil Application No.5396 of 2001, the petitioner was reinstated. It is case of the petitioner that as he worked with the respondents for a considerable time, he is entitled for benefit of permanency as per Government Resolution dtd. 17/10/1988, he therefore filed Reference (IT) Case No.26 of 2008 before the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, wherein the Tribunal directed the respondent to treat the petitioner as permanent employee by fixing his salary without arrears till 5/8/2017. The order dtd. 5/8/2017 by Industrial Tribunal was challenged by respondent by filing Special Civil Application No.3097 of 2018, wherein this Court by order dtd. 5/7/2022, dismissed the same and thus status of the permanency to the petitioner has been confirmed.

(3.) It is submitted that the petitioner has attended age of superannuation on 31/3/2022 and therefore he is entitled for his retiral benefits such as pension, gratuity and leave encashment. Learned advocate for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner has filed representation dtd. 26/12/2022 to release the retiral benefits mainly on the ground that he had completed 30 years of continuous service. In support of submissions, he relied on the Government Resolution dtd. 17/10/1988 and the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.3097 of 2018, in the case of Rajkot District Panchayat other Vs. Ramesh Chhaganlal Mandaviya and decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Gujarat Vs. PWD and Forest Employees Union, reported in 2019 (15) SCC 248.