PINAKIN PRAVINCHANDRA UPADHYAYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R. R. Vakil, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, Ms. Nidhi Vyas, the learned AGP appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 and 5 and Mr. Subham B. Dave, the learned advocate appearing for Mr. Dipen K. Dave, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents No.4.

(2.) Rule. Ms. Nidhi Vyas, the learned AGP waives service of rule for and on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3 and 5. Mr. Subham B. Dave, the learned advocate appearing for Mr. Dipen K. Dave, the learned advocate, waives service of rule for and on behalf of the respondents No.4.

(3.) All the four captioned petitions challenge the decision taken by the Respondent No.2, wherein by the impugned communication dtd. 10/1/2019 issued by the respondent No.2 addressed to the respondent No.3 wherein it is stated that since the service of the petitioners was not on regular setup of the respondent No.4 sanctioned by the competent authority, the petitioners are not entitled for retirement benefits including the pensionary benefits as stated in the impugned communication at Annexure-K to the petition.