DURSINH JUGSINH RATHOD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to direct the respondents to finalise his claim of pension on the basis of the services rendered right from 28.11.1964 to 30.6.2002, the date on which he retired on reaching the age of superannuation.

(2.) The petitioner joined his service as a primary teacher on 28.11.1964 in the Ashram School and came to be absorbed on 29.12.1992 in the service of the District Education Committee, Mehsana. His claim for pension was thwarted by the District Education Committee on the ground that he had acquired lien with effect from 29.12.1992 and his total period of service after acquiring the lien was nine years, six months and three days and, therefore, relying upon Rule 80 (1) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, he was taken to have not completed ten years of qualifying service to be entitled to pension.

(3.) Despite issuance of Notice and Rule much earlier, no affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the State Government and an affidavit, without even mentioning the designation of the officer who had executed it, has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2. It is stated in that affidavit, produced today in the Court, that the petitioner had joined the service on 28.11.1964 in an Ashram School and worked upto 28.12.1992. It is also stated that: ?....As per G.R.dated 23.8.1973 passed by the Government of Gujarat through its Education Department, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of pensionary benefits only from the date of getting the benefit of lien till the date of superannuation....?. Thus, it is admitted that the earlier service in the Ashram School upto 28.12.1992 was not counted and considered for the purpose of granting the benefits to the petitioner.