VIKARAM KHODABHAI CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by way of this petition has challenged the inaction on the part of the respondents, more particularly, respondent no. 2-Gram Panchayat for not paying the retiral benefits to the petitioner though the petitioner has retired way back on 30.9.1992 from the post of Clerk after putting in 42 years of service.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed as Nakedar in the year 1950 by the orders of Collector dated 8.6.1950. He was promoted to the post of Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 30-1-40 vide order No. 1879 dated 4.1.1956. At the time of appointment of the petitioner, the State was called as Saurashtra State and appointment of the petitioner was on the sanctioned post.

(3.) With conversion of the old Municipalities-Sudharai into the Panchayat on 10.10.1956, all properties and servants of the Old Municipalities were transferred to the respective Panchayats. It is the case of the petitioner that the set-up of the said post held by him was duly sanctioned vide order of the Collector dated 13//1950 and the Municipality has been converted into Panchayat as per Notification dated 26.9.1956, and as such, he was entitled to the salary, dearness allowance and increments etc. as was being paid to the other employees of the State Government. It is further case of the petitioner that after the decision by the Apex Court in the year 1983, the respondent no. 2 Panchayat passed a resolution no. 7 dated 8.1.1986 resolving to forward proposal for giving provident fund to the petitioner on the basis of the said judgment. The respondent-panchayat also passed a resolution no. 24 dated 23.7.1987 resolving to pay arrears of Rs. 5220.80ps to the petitioner on fixation of pay of the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940 on the post of Peon and in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 on the post of clerk and also recommended for giving house rent w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The petitioner states that the Taluka Development Officer, Kotda-Sangani passed an order dated 26.11.1987 suspending the Resolution passed by the respondent Panchayat No. 24 dated 23.7.1987 on the ground that so long as the final decision on the subject was not taken, pay-scale cannot be given to the employees of the Gram/Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, respondent-Gram Panchayat addressed another letter dated 6.2.1988 to the Taluka Development Officer along with various orders and notifications of the Government, stating all the facts in detail, and requested to issue specific order about the provident fund, pension, gratuity etc. as the retirement of the petitioner was approaching. Thereafter, petitioner seems to have approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application and Letters Patent Appeal for the grant of aforementioned benefits, however, his petition came to be dismissed. Ultimately, respondent-panchayat passed an order dated 25.9.1992 stating therein that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1950 by the order of the Collector, Rajkot on sanctioned post in accordance with law. On conversion of the Old Municipality into Panchayat, the petitioner was transferred to the respondent Panchayat, and considering the birth date of the petitioner as 30.9.1934, the petitioner retires on 30.9.1992 on reaching at the age of superannuation of 58 years. Considering the fact that the petitioner has worked for 42 years continuously, the petitioner was entitled to pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits, and therefore, Proposal no. 41 dated 1.7.1992 was forwarded by the respondent-Panchayat to the Government for release of pension and other retiral benefits. It is also the case of the petitioner that Section Officer of Panchayat and Rural Housing Department, Gandhinagar issued order dated 20.5.1992 sanctioning the proposal of the Kotda-Sangani Panchayat dated 30.8.1980 for giving benefits of Desai Pay Commission to its clerk, and accordingly, the benefits of Desai Pay Commission was released to the petitioner at the relevant time. That controlling authority under the Gratuity Act, Rajkot issued a communication/order dated 20.11.2004 holding that the petitioner was entitled for gratuity of Rs. 50,969/-. Accordingly, this amount was paid to the petitioner along with 10% interest. Despite payment of gratuity in the year 2004, the petitioner has been denied other retiral benefits, and accordingly, has approached this Court for aforementioned reliefs.