RAMABHAI POPATBHAI BHANGI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, confirmed (Retd.) employees of the respondent No.2-Municipality praying for issuance of the directions to the respondent to grant them pensionary benefits.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners had put in more than 30 years of services in the office of the respondent No.2 as sweeper (safai kamdar). The petitioners were about to reach the age of superannuation, but before reaching of the said age as they were not physically fit to carry on work of safai kamdar and had in fact became weak to do such work they have submitted their resignation from services. They made representations to all the concerned officers from time to time for giving them the pension benefits. They filed special civil application No.4362/92 before this court, which came to be decided on 29/12/93 in terms directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners sympathetically with regard to their claim of pensionary benefits. Under the order dtd. 3/5/94 the respondent No.1 has declined to grant the prayer of the petitioners for grant of pension. This order has been made on the ground that the petitioners are not fulfilling the conditions of Government Resolution dated 15/12/88. The petitioners filed second special civil application before this court being Special Civil Application No.8363/95, which came to be decided on 22/1/96. This court has again ordered the respondent No.1 that it in its order 3/5/94 has not given out which of the condition of the resolution dated 15/12/88 the petitioners are not fulfilling. The direction has been given to the respondent No.1 to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made in the judgment aforestated. Fresh decision was taken by the respondent No.1 and it has been communicated to the chief officer of the Jasdan Nagar Panchayat vide letter dated 24/2/97. The claim of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that as per sub para (2) of para 3 of the resolution dated 15/12/88 where, in service condition of such employees age limit of retirement is not fixed and such employees became disabled and resigned due to age factor are only eligible for the benefit of the pension. It is mentioned that the petitioners had not become disabled and resigned due to the work of safai and not became disabled and resigned due to age factor. Hence this special civil application before this court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents are acting highly arbitrarily in the matter of grant of pension benefits to the petitioners. It has next been contended that the whole approach of the respondent No.1 in this matter is contrary to the resolution dated 15/12/88. Lastly it is contended that the petitioners are poor persons and they have rendered more than 30 years service and because of that they became incapacitated due to their age factor they resigned from the services and this technical approach should not have been taken and the substance of the matter has to be considered and they should have been extended the benefit of the resolution dated 15/12/88.