CHANDRAKANT ANNA JADHAV Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Tejas P. Satta for the petitioner, learned AGP Ms. Nidhi Vyas for the respondent-State and learned Advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat for the respondents No. 2 and 3.

(2.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following prayers :

(3.) It appears that the petitioner, who had joined the service of the respondent-University from the year 1978 on temporary basis and from the year 1983 on regular basis, raises a grievance as regards non-payment of pension and other retiral benefits, more particularly non-joining the petitioner in the pension scheme as promulgated by the State Government. It appears that the petitioner had joined the respondent- University as a temporary cleaner on 4/11/1978 and had continued as such. It appears that later on, the petitioner and other similarly situated Class-IV employees working on temporary basis were to be appointed on permanent basis and to facilitate the same, vide an order dtd. 31/12/1983, the petitioner and other such temporary employees were appointed on probationary basis for a period of one year from the date of the order. It appears that the petitioner had continued as such till the date of his regular superannuation i.e. 14/6/2014, and whereas upon the proposal being sent to the respondent No.4 for payment of pension and other benefits, it appears that the same had not been considered, more particularly on the ground that the petitioner had not given any option as per the pension scheme for non-teaching staff in Government affiliated colleges and universities, promulgated vide Government Resolution dtd. 14/9/1988. It appears that, on the other hand, the petitioner had been treated as being covered under the General Provident Fund Scheme and an amount of Rs.1,42,451.00 had been paid to the petitioner on 1/7/2014. It appears that the respondent-University and the petitioner had continuously approached the respondent-State Authorities for considering the case of the petitioner as being covered under the pension scheme in question and whereas since no positive response was elicited, more particularly since it appears that the respondent-State had rejected the request of considering the petitioner as being covered under the pension scheme vide communication dtd. 3/1/2016, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.