Disposed

Kokilaben Gordhanbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC20 Dec 2018SCA/15085/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This oral order disposed of a Special Civil Application where the petitioner sought pensionary benefits withheld by a municipal authority. The petitioner requested the lower authority to consider her representation to extend benefits under a retrospective Government Resolution.

What did the court decide?

The authority is directed to consider the petitioner's representation regarding entitlement to benefits within three months. Rule discharged. Interim relief vacated.

Kokilaben Gordhanbhai Patel Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

C/SCA/15085/2004 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15085 of 2004

¶4

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

¶5

KOKILABEN GORDHANBHAI PATEL

¶6

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

¶7

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

¶8

Appearance:

¶9

MR BIPIN P JASANI for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MS. DIVYANGNA JHALA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2,3,5

¶10

MR GAURANG K PATEL for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 6 RULE SERVED BY DS for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 4 RULE SERVED BY DS(65) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2,3

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. SHASTRI

¶13

Date : 20/12/2018

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶16

is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs:-

¶17

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the impugned action of the respondents for withholding the pensionary benefit likewise pension, commutation of pension, gratuity etc. of the petitioner with effect from 01.11.2002 and further be pleased to declare that the petitioner is entitled and eligible to get all the pensionary retiral benefits likewise pension, commutation of pension, gratuity etc. with 12% compound interest w.e.f. 01.11.2002 till the date of actual payment as per pension scheme of G.R. Dated 06.04.2002 as per Annexure-B and further be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned action of the respondent authority for not giving the benefit of pension scheme as per G.R. Dated 06.04.2002 (as per

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

C/SCA/15085/2004 ORDER

¶20

Annexure-B) as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice;

¶21

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent District Education Officer, Gandhinagar to make payment of the provisional pension and gratuity to the petitioner forthwith pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition;

¶22

(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 to remain personally present with calculation of all pensionary benefits with 12% interest which is payable to the petitioner on the returnable date fixed by this Hon'ble High Court pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition;

¶23

(D) To grant such other and further relief/s as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶24

It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner was appointed as a Trained Assistant Teacher on 10.10.1983 with respondent no. 6 institution which is initially run by Dehgam Municipality which is not taking aid from government. On account of reaching the age of superannuation at 58 years, the petitioner was retired on 31.10.2002. However, prior thereto, the State Government has pronounced the pension scheme to be made applicable to the recognized Registered Private Primary School Employees inclusive of Teachers and Head Masters and the said Government Resolution dated 06.04.2002 was just prior to the retirement of the petitioner.

¶25

Page 2 of 5

¶26

C/SCA/15085/2004 ORDER

¶27

It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner was covered under the EPF scheme and pursuant to that he has got all the retiral benefits including the pension. However, on account of scheme which has been formulated by the government vide aforesaid resolution, the petitioner is fully eligible for that and is ready and willing to repay all the amount received under the EPF Scheme. In response to this request, the District Education Officer, Gandhinagar, vide its communication dated 25.07.2004 has directed the District Primary Education Officer, District Education Committee to take appropriate decision and to take proper steps in respect of request made by the petitioner. However, according to the petitioner there is no such decision communicated so far and to the reasonable knowledge of the petitioner, no decision is taken at all. Since, the decision has not been taken by the authority, this Court is unable to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction particularly the writ of mandamus cannot be issued by this Court.

¶28

As a result of this, the learned advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition with a view to approach respondent no. 1 and 2 with a request to extend the benefit of Government Resolution Dated 06.04.2002.

¶29

Against this, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

C/SCA/15085/2004 ORDER

¶32

respondent authorities have submitted that petitioner was an employee in an institution run by Municipality Board of Dehgam Municipality and is not receiving grant from the government and therefore, benefit of Government Resolution dated 06.04.2002 is not applicable.

¶33

Additionally, it has been submitted that petitioner, pursuant to her retirement has already secured all the retiral dues including pension which the petitioner is receiving till date. Be that as it may, the Court found that there is no decision on the request of the petitioner taken so far by the authority. Hence, the Court is disposed of the present petition on the following count which would meet the ends of justice:-

¶34

6.1. The petitioner shall make appropriate representation before the respondent no. 1 and competent authority requesting to extend benefit of Government Resolution dated 06.04.2002 within a period of fifteen days from today and upon receiving such representation, the authority is directed to take appropriate decision in this regard within a period of three months from the date of receipt of writ and the application being submitted by the petitioner.

¶35

The Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits and demerits of the petition. However, it is left open for the authority to take suitable decision in this regard independently.

¶36

Page 4 of 5

¶37

C/SCA/15085/2004 ORDER

¶38

With the above observation and direction, petition stands disposed of as not pressed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.

¶39

(A.J. SHASTRI, J)

¶40

Bhoomi

¶41

Page 5 of 5

Kokilaben Gordhanbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kokilaben Gordhanbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S a Malik Vs State of Gujarat

Kiran Joshi Vs State of Gujarat

D S Shah - Retd Superintendent of Prohibition & Excise Vs State of Gujarat

Jayshreeben Raghavjibhai Dhameliya Vs Maheshbhai Kotechha Managing Trustee

Dalpatbhai Laxmanbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat through Secretary

Kokilaben N Trivedi Vs Shrimati Prabhudas Charitable Trust