KULINCHANDRA M DHOLAKIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs in para No.5.

(2.) The brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Demonstrator on 25.09.1958 in M.S.University, where he continued upto 1961. On 10.08.1961 he joined Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani (Rajasthan). Subsequently, the Birla Institute and other two colleges were amalgamated and were declared as deemed University i.e. Birla Institute of Technology and Science. The petitioner then joined Birla Vishwakarma Mahavidhyalaya at Vallabhvidhyanagar, Gujarat, with effect from 17.12.1984 and retired as Principal from the said institution on 31.12.1992. The petitioner has averred that on 17.12.1987, the Government of Gujarat issued resolution introducing pension scheme for teaching and non teaching staff of nonGovernment Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics. The Birla Vishwakarma Mahavidhyalaya, Vallabhvidhyanagarthe respondent No.4 is one of the institutes covered therein for the scheme of pension. The petitioner has further averred that after the petitioner joined the respondent No.4, he was asked to deposit CPF Contribution to enable the State to include the petitioner in the pension scheme. The petitioner therefore deposited CPF Contribution received by him with interest in Sub Treasury at Anand. Thereafter, the pension papers of the petitioner for his 34 years of service were prepared and the Director of Technical Education, after proper verification forwarded his pension papers to the Director of Pay and Pensionrespondent No.3. However, respondent no.3 did not consider service of about 23 years for the period from 1961 to 1984 for the purpose of pension. The Director of Technical Education therefore passed an order for refund of the CPF amount deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner accepted the said amount without prejudice to his rights to challenge the action of the respondent No.3 in not considering his service from 1961 to 1984 for the purpose of pension. It is the case of the petitioner that as per Clause 8 of the resolution dated 17.12.1987 services rendered by him prior to joining the respondent No.4 institution is required to be considered for the purpose of pension and other benefits.

(3.) I have heard learned advocates for the parties.