AMRUTLAL J BHATT Vs. STATE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was serving as a Forester in the Forest Department of the State of Gujarat. The respondents wanted to retire the petitioner on his reaching the age of 58 on 30-6-1979 while the contention of the petitioner was that he was governed by the old Rules of Junagadh State and his age of superannuation would be 60 years and not 58 years and therefore he was entitled to continue in service upto 30-6-1981. The petitioner on the aforesaid ground filed Regular Civil Suit No. 374 of 1979 in the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division Junagadh. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court on 30 The trial Court held that the petitioner was entitled to be retained in service till he attained the age of 60 years and declared that the order dated 4-6-1979 retiring the petitioner from service with effect from 30-6-1979 was unconstitutional void and inoperative. Against this judgment of the trial Court the State of Gujarat filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 118 of 1982 and the said appeal was dismissed by the District Judge Junagadh on 30-4-1985. There is nothing on record to show that any Second Appeal has been filed by the State of Gujarat against the decision of the District Judge. Mr. Anil R. Dave for the respondents made an oral statement that a Second Appeal was filed and is pending in this Court. But Mr. Dave also conceded that no interim relief has been granted by this Court staying the operation of the order passed by the Courts below. It may also be mentioned here that no affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondents in this petition.

(2.) Having heard the learned Advocate Mr. M. D. Rana for the petitioner and Mr. Anil R. Dave for the respondents I am inclined to allow this petition for the reasons which follow.

(3.) The petitioner contended that he was entitled to continue in service upto 30-6-1981. He filed Regular Civil Suit in the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division as stated earlier. That suit was filed on 22 The petitioner continued in service upto 30-6-1981 by virtue of the interim injunction issued by the trial Court in the suit and that fact is not disputed. The petitioner thus continued in active service upto 30-6-1981 by virtue of the injunction granted by the trial Court. The suit was also decreed and the said decree was confirmed in appeal by the District Court as stated earlier. In view of this it is clear that the petitioner continued in service upto 30-6-1981 as his contention that he was entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years was accepted by the Courts below. When the petitioner continued in service upto 30-6-1981 in the circumstances stated above it is clear that the petitioner will be entitled to pensionary benefits on the footing that he retired on 30-6-1981.