(1.) In the backdrop of undisputed fact about entitlement of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to receive family pension, the question that arise for consideration is whether revision of pension can be denied on the basis of Government Resolution dated 03.09.2010 issued by the Department of Urban Development and Urban Housing, State of Gujarat, having fixed the criteria for payment to employees of municipalities on par with employees of State Government based on recommendations of 6th Pay Commission.
(2.) The denial of revision of pay is now on the ground that the concerned municipality, namely, respondent No.3 herein has exceeded expenses for establishment beyond the ceiling of 48% so prescribed by Government Resolution dated 03.09.2010 and when even employees of such Nagar Palikas are not entitled for revision of pay, in revision any pension so directed by the learned Single Judge would be contrary to the Government Resolution, and therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the order impugned.
(3.) Considering the entire record of the writ petition in the context of order passed by the learned Single Judge under challenge and Government Resolution dated 03.09.2010 prescribing ceiling of 48% qua expenses to be incurred towards establishment by municipality, benefits of recommendations of 6th Pay Commission is available to employees of municipality upon fulfillment of ten conditions. It further provides that, from the date of passing of the resolution respectively, the benefits of pay-scale of 6th Pay Commission is to be granted, at the same time, an essential requirement mandates concerned nagarpalika not to incur establishment expenses beyond 48%.