STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HANSABEN B. UPADHYAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP appearing for the appellants, Mr. J.D. Ajmera, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Ms. Asmita V. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellants-original respondents challenging the judgment and order dated 28.02.2013 (Reported in 2013 Lab IC 3256) passed in Special Civil Application No. 12335 of 2004, whereby the learned single Judge was pleased to hold that the respondent-original petitioner entitled for pension and other retirement dues considering the date of voluntary retirement i.e. 30.06.1999.

(2.) The facts in brief of this case are that the respondent-original petitioner joined the service of the opponent department school on 01.6.1972 and that if the same is considered, the respondent-original petitioner completed 27 years of service in the year 1999. It is stated that the respondents-original petitioners requested for voluntary retirement. It is stated there was scheme of pension at the relevant of time, where the respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) used to work. The case was not considered for payment of pension. However, subsequently the pension benefits were extended to the grant in aid provided to recognize primary schools in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 6.4.2002 with retrospective effect from 1.1.1997. It is stated that respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) whole petition based on the said backgrounds. The respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) had also relied on various documents and the orders passed by this Court i.e. Special Civil Application No. 7109 of 2005 and the Government Resolution dated 13.07.2006.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned AGP that the resolution dated 6.4.2002 will not apply to the facts of the present case. He further submitted that the learned single Judge ought to have considered the scheme i.e. Government policy dated 6.4.2002 in its true perspective, the foundation of the said scheme was claimed on one lady viz. Kusumben Barsada who preferred the petition claiming pension benefits. The scheme is clear to the extent that it would be applicable to those who were in service from 1997 to 2002 and have retired i.e. they would be eligible for claiming pension. However, the respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) on voluntarily retired in the year 1999 and therefore, her case could not have been considered for payment of pension because of her superannuation would not have been between 1997 and 2002 and even otherwise had the case been with her superannuation within the said duration she has not completed her full service till superannuation and therefore, she is not eligible for the said benefits of pension.