TRIBHOVANBHAI JERAMBHAI Vs. DY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition relates to travails of a person who has been in the employment of the State Government for almost 28 years and still awaiting for his retiral benefits in terms of the Government's order, revealing a pathetic insensitivity towards the fellow employees who has superannuated and look for a peaceful and quiet life at the twilight of his life banking upon the retiral benefits assured under the relevant rules and orders of the State authorities themselves.

(2.) The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner had been in service of the State Government mostly as a daily rated workman since 1966 until he was treated permanent in terms of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and retired on completing sixty years on 31.1.1994. After laying the claim before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Provident Fund Commissioner his retiral benefits in the form of gratuity and provident fund contributions were determined and paid by treating the period of service rendered by the petitioner from 1966 to 1994. However, the pension, the regular source of income to maintain a retired employee had not so far not been granted. In fact, an attempt has been made to show that the petitioner is not entitled to pensionary benefit because he has not completed qualifying service as per the award read in the light of Bombay Civil Services Rules governing the grant of pension.

(3.) Though initially the learned counsel for the respondent tentatively sought to urge that as on the date of retirement on 31.1.1994 the petitioner has not completed 10 years of service as daily rated employee and he cannot be treated as permanent in terms of resolution dated 17.10.1966. But when it was pointed out that in reply the respondents have admitted that the petitioner was a daily wager for the period of 1966 to 1987. It is further revealed from the reply that though department initially treated the petitioner in employment as daily rated workman on work charge establishment with effect from 16.4.1987 only, and paid gratuity for that period only, ultimately on a dispute having been raised in that regard the petitioner was held to be in service with effect from 1966 and gratuity was paid for the entire period from 1966 to 1994, the learned counsel candidly stated that the fact that petitioner was in service of respondents since 1966 cannot be disputed. This further makes it clear that as on date resolutions dated 17.10.1988 was made by the Government the petitioner had been in employment of State for more than ten years as daily rated employee, entitled to be treated as permanent.