KEVAJIBHAI GAJALABHAI CHAUDHARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. MS. KRINA Calla, learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents - State. Mr. Pranav Shah, learned Advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 3. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and/or order directing respondents to consider and count his service from 01. 09. 1989 for pension. Though in the petition the petitioner has prayed to consider his service from 01. 09. 1981 for higher pay scale, promotion and other consequential benefits but in view of the fact that the petitioner has already retired on 31. 06. 2007, at this belated stage the benefit of higher pay scale, etc. cannot be reopened. Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned Advocate has also fairly conceded that it will not be possible and not open for the petitioner to pray for promotion etc. In view of above, question which is required to be considered by this Court is to consider and count period of service of the petitioner from 01. 09. 1981. It appears that the petitioner was appointed initially as Divisional Administrative on 17. 11. 1979 in 'gujarat Rjya Sarvodya Yojana' introduced by respondent No. 2 - Department. That thereafter, Sarvodaya Yojana came to be cancelled and Resolution came to be passed absorbing the petitioner and all the employees of Sarvodaya Yojana in respondent No. 1 with effect from 01. 09. 1981. That subsequently from 01. 04. 1987 the petitioner has received pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/- in the grade of Clerk cum Typist by respondent No. 3 - Department. It appears that the petitioner has retired in the year 2007. However, for the purpose of pension etc. his earlier service with effect from 01. 09. 1981 has not been considered and counted. Hence, the present petitioner has preferred present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) MR. BRAHMBHATT, learned Advocate for the petitioner has heavily relied upon decision of this Court (Coram : Akil Kureshi, J.) dated 09. 03. 2006 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6992 of 2002 and other allied matters. Having heard Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Krina Calla, learned AGP for respondents - State and Mr. Pranav Shah, learned Advocate for respondent No. 3 and considering decision of this Court dated 09. 03. 2006 rendered Special Civil Application No. 6992 of 2002 and other allied matters, present petition deserves to be allowed. Learned Single Judge by aforesaid judgment in aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 6992 of 2002 in identical set of facts and circumstances and with respect to similarly situated employees has passed an order to grant pensionary benefits from the date of initial appointment and fix their salary on the basis of original pay scale of Rs. 300 - 560/ -. Ms. Krina Calla, learned AGP is not in a position to show any contrary decision to the decision referred to herein above. She is also not in a position to point out that the petitioner is not similarly situated. In view of above controversy raised in the present Special Civil Application is squarely covered by the decision of this Court dated 09. 03. 2006 rendered in Special Civil Application No. 6992 of 2002 and allied matters.