Disposed

Fuliben Wd/O Natvarbhai Maganbhai Patel v. Ankitbhai Karshanbhai Zala

Gujarat HC28 Jun 2018MCA/2944/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt application arising from the Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation, the High Court held that since pension proceedings were already initiated and done for the petitioner, the case did not warrant further contempt proceedings. The court disposed of the application and directed regular payment of pension and any pending arrears.

What did the court decide?

The court disposed of the application and directed the respondents to regularly pay the pension and any applicable arrears expeditiously as per the issued pension order.

Fuliben Wd/O Natvarbhai Maganbhai Patel Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

C/MCA/2944/2017 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2944 of 2017 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15020 of 2005

¶3

==========================================================

¶4

FULIBEN WD/O NATVARBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL

¶5

Versus ANKITBHAI KARSHANBHAI ZALA

¶6

==========================================================

¶7

Appearance:

¶8

MR VA MANSURI(2880) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2 MS HARSHAL N PANDYA(3141) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 3

¶9

==========================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY and

¶11

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI Date : 28/06/2018 ORAL ORDER

¶12

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY)

¶13

1.This Misc. Civil Application is filed under the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
alleging that the respondents have violated the
directions issued in the judgment dated 21.12.2016,
passed in Special Civil Application No.15020 of 2005.

¶14

2.The applicant herein was originally appointed as
Work-charge Engine Operator at Badarpur, Taluka
Kapadvanj on 16.09.1968. The appointment of the
applicant was initially in the Panchayat. Thereafter,
his services were transferred to Gujarat Water
Resources Development Corporation.

¶15

3.The grievance in the petition was for fixation
of pension payable to the petitioner. By the
aforesaid judgment, the petition was allowed by

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

C/MCA/2944/2017 ORDER

¶18

declaring him entitled to the pension from the
respondent Panchayat. The communication dated
29.08.2000 was quashed and the respondents were
directed to undertake the exercise of fixing the
pension of the petitioner and necessary payments be
made within a period of four months from the date of
the receipt of the judgment.

¶19

4.In this application, separate affidavit-in-
replies are filed by respondent Nos.1 and 3.

¶20

5.In the reply affidavit filed by respondent No.3,
it is stated that the applicant has completed
qualifying service for pension from the Panchayat but
not from the Corporation. It is further stated that
the petitioner retired from the Corporation in the
year 1984. Upon his retirement, as per the scheme
which was in force in the Corporation i.e.
Contributory Provident Fund, the applicant was paid
all dues. Respondent No.1 has also placed on record
the proceedings dated 03.02.2018 issued by the
Pension and Provident Fund Office fixing the pension
payable to the applicant for the services rendered by
him in the Panchayat. A perusal of the proceedings
dated 03.02.2018 makes it clear that as the applicant
served upto 14.10.1981 from the date of his initial
appointment, such service is counted for the purpose
of pension. It is not in dispute that towards the
arrears, am amount of Rs.4,03,678/- is already paid.

¶21

6.As much as services rendered by the applicant in

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

C/MCA/2944/2017 ORDER

¶24

the Corporation is not pensionable service and as the
pension order is already issued by the respondent
fixing the pension, we are of the view that this is
not a fit case to proceed further under the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Accordingly, the application is disposed of,
directing the respondents to regularly pay the
pension as per the pension order issued by the
authorities. If any arrear towards pension is
payable, such amount shall also be paid to the
applicant, as expeditiously as possible.

¶25

(R.SUBHASH REDDY, CJ)

¶26

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)

¶27

piyush

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Fuliben Wd/O Natvarbhai Maganbhai Patel v. Ankitbhai Karshanbhai Zala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fuliben Wd/O Natvarbhai Maganbhai Patel v. Ankitbhai Karshanbhai Zala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Navrachna Education Society Vs Jayantbhai Sanghvi

Eurowoods Lumber Pvt. Ltd. through Director, Khimji Lakhamshi Shah Vs Cosmos Co-Op. Bank Ltd.

Aniruddha Woods Pvt. Ltd., through Director, Khimji L. Shah. Vs Cosmos Co-Op. Bank Ltd.

Bhavnaben Rajeshbhai Kachhadiya Vs State of Gujarat through the Designated Authority

Bahadur Jivabhai Vaghela Vs State of Gujarat

Pradipkumar Ramanlal Vayeda Vs Vikramsinh Jadeja (Retired)