LAWS(GJH)-2007-12-24

A M VASAVADA Vs. CHAIRMAN

Decided On December 06, 2007
A.M.VASAVADA Appellant
V/S
CHAIRMAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Technical Assistant on temporary basis vide order dated 07. 07. 1954 by the Government of Saurashtra and thereafter, he was also appointed on probation on such post of technical assistant vide order dated 28. 09. 1954 read with the order dated 01. 10. 1954. It appears that during the said period, Saurashtra Electricity Board was constituted and as per the petitioner, he was placed in service of Saurashtra Electricity Board whereas, as per the respondent Board, his appointment for all purposes was in Saurashtra Electricity Board. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner continued in service and as per the respondent Board, the representation was made by the Employees Union of Ex-Saurashtra Government Employees to give option to join Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (hereinafter referred to as "cpf Scheme") and ultimately, the Board had agreed to give such option and that out of 800 employees, 300 employees opted for CPF Scheme in the Board. It appears that on 24. 06. 1971, the petitioner also submitted the option form and opted to continue with the existing benefit of the CPF Scheme to the employees of the Electricity Board. The contribution has also been made by way of deduction from the salary of the petitioner and the said position continued upto 1982. He was paid the accumulated amount in the CPF at his credit and also the gratuity. It is the case of the petitioner that such payment was accepted under protest and as the petitioner is not paid the pension as if the Government employee, the present petition.

(2.) MR. Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has declared before the Court that the petitioner is pressing the relief only for the pensionary benefits and other reliefs are not pressed and therefore, such reliefs are not required to be considered.

(3.) HEARD Mr. Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. D. Pandya, learned counsel for the respondents.