OSMAN MAMAD KACHHA Vs. GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner has preferred this petition on the ground that the petitioner was serving as a daily-wager Khalsi in the Gujarat Maritime from the year 1980. Thereafter, his service came to be terminated by the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred Reference being No.LCD/3/1980 along with other petitioners seeking the benefits, which was decided by the learned Tribunal vide order dtd. 20/10/1981. The petitioner has also preferred a Civil Suit No.05 of 1987, wherein, the settlement came to be arrived at by and between the parties to the proceedings and the said Civil Suit came to be disposed of by recording the settlement on 11/9/1995, wherein, the petitioner was agreed to forgo his all right including the future benefits, on the basis that the petitioner was again recommended in 1995 and thereafter, the petitioner reached to the age of superannuation and he retired from the service. He prayed the retiral benefits on the basis of the Government Resolution dtd. 17/10/1988 and the same was denied by the respondents. Therefore, the present petition is filed with the following prayers: 7(A) direct the respondent authorities to recalculate the pension and other retirement dues considering the entire period of service rendered by the petitioner with the respondent authorities, and (B) further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay arrears of pension and other retirement dues flowing from above payer clause with interest at the rate which the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, and (C) make of payment of gratuity, which is withheld by the authorities with interest, and (D) award the cost of petition, and (E) pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent - authorities to re-calculate the pension and other retirement dues of the petitioner considering the entire period of service rendered by the petitioner, and / or (F) grant my other relief or pass any other order, which the Honourable Court may consider as just and proepr, in the facts and circumstances of the cases.

(2.) While relying upon the G.R. dtd. 17/10/1988, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that as the petitioner has completed more than 10 years of continuous service as required under the G.R. dtd. 17/10/1988, therefore, he is entitled to get the benefits. It is contended that the petitioner referred to and relied upon the clarification issued by the Government, more particularly, the Road and Building Department on 30/5/1989, wherein, more particularly, referring the clarification may be in clause-2, the petitioner has prayed to grant all the retiral benefits on the basis of G.R. dtd. 17/10/1988.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the service of the petitioner came to be terminated and on detriment in the form of undertaking, the petitioner was reinstated in service and re-appointed in service in 1995 and regularized in service and therefore, his service came to be regularized in 2005 for consideration of the retiral benefit, which fact is taken into consideration from 2005 onward and prior thereto, his service cannot be taken into consideration as he was reinstated in 1995. It is also contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to seek any benefits with regard to his retiral or any consequential relief as sought for in the present petition and hence, in view of the above, the petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed.