Dismissed

State of Gujarat v. Babarbhai Mansukhbhai Vasava Since Decd. Throgh Legal Heir Surajben Wd/O Babarbhai Vasava

Gujarat HC9 Dec 2021LPA/1061/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Letters Patent Appeal challenged a Single Judge's order granting a retired government employee's widow full pension and leave encashment based on total service. The High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision, dismissing the appeal as the beneficiary was similarly situated to those in referenced precedents.

What did the court decide?

Letters Patent Appeal dismissed; Civil Application for stay disposed of.

State of Gujarat Vs Babarbhai Mansukhbhai… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gujarat HC (2021)

¶1

C/LPA/1061/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/12/2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1061 of 2021 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15076 of 2020 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1061 of 2021

¶4

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

¶5

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶6

Versus

¶7

BABARBHAI MANSUKHBHAI VASAVA SINCE DECD. THROGH LEGAL HEIR SURAJBEN WD/O BABARBHAI VASAVA

¶8

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

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MR SOAHAM JOSHI AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H.VORA

¶13

and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

¶14

Date : 09/12/2021

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE)

¶17

ORDER IN R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1061 of 2021

¶18

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the order dated 10.12.2020 in Special Civil Application No.15076 of 2020.

¶19

2. The brief facts leading to the appeal are :-

¶20

2.1 The deceased husband of the respondent No.1 was employed as Rojamdar in the office of the appellant No.2 with effect from 29.06.1984. He put in his service continuously and uninterruptedly till his death on 30.07.2016 after serving for 32 years. During his service, the deceased husband of the respondent No.1 was extended the benefits of Government Resolution dated

¶21

Page 1 of 5

¶22

C/LPA/1061/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/12/2021

¶23

17.10.1988 and was also made permanent pursuant to the said government resolution.

¶24

2.2 After the death, the respondent No.1 was paid the pension in the year in the year 2018. The pension was calculated after deducting 12 years of service put in by the deceased husband of respondent No.1. It is alleged that she was not paid full pensionary benefit which was her legitimate right.

¶25

2.3 The respondent No.1 made a representation dated 27.08.2020 through the Union seeking full pensionary benefits. By communication dated 09.09.2020, the appellant No.2 herein informed the respondent No.1 that the respondent No.1 was not entitled to the pension of full length of service. Further, respondent No.1 was also declined the compensation in pursuance of Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011.

¶26

2.4 Aggrieved, the respondent No.1 herein filed Special Civil Application No.15076 of 2020 praying for the following reliefs:-

¶27

“(A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction,

¶28

(i) to hold and declare that action on part of the respondents in not making payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioner by counting his entire length of service from date of joining till date of retirement as illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and further be pleased to direct the respondents to fix the pension of the petitioner by counting his service from date of joining until the date of retirement and fix the pension accordingly;

¶29

(ii) to hold and declare that the petitioner shall be paid all other

¶30

Page 2 of 5

¶31

C/LPA/1061/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/12/2021

¶32

benefits like Public Holidays, Transport Allowance, Medical Allowance, Group Insurance at part with the permanent employees.

¶33

(iii) to hold and declare that the petitioner is entitled to receive financial assistance as per G. R. dated 05.07.2011.

¶34

(iv) to hold and declare that petitioner is entitled to all other retiral benefits including benefit of leave encashment and be pleased to further direct the respondents to pay amount of leave encashment of leave standing in the account of the petitioner;

¶35

(iii) to direct the respondents to pay difference of pensionary benefits, gratuity amount, leave encashment and other benefits with 18% interest from the date when it fell due;

¶36

(B) Pending the admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately re-fix the pension of the petitioner on the basis of his total length of service;

¶37

(C) Any other and further relief or reliefs to which this Hon’ble Court deemed fit, in the interest of justice may kindly be granted;”

¶38

2.5 The appellants herein opposed the said Special Civil Application.

¶39

2.6 By the impugned judgment and order dated 10.12.2020, the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition of the respondent No.1 and directed the appellants herein to extend the benefit of counting the services of her deceased husband from the date of initial appointment till his retirement so as to entail the benefit of revised family pension and leave encashment to the petitioner.

¶40

Page 3 of 5

¶41

C/LPA/1061/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/12/2021

¶42

2.7 Aggrieved, the appellants herein have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

¶43

3. Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that in view of various government resolutions and circulars, the deceased husband of the respondent No.1 was not entitled to the pensionary benefits from the date of his initial appointment and further no leave encashment was payable under the government resolutions. He accordingly prayed that the Letters Patent Appeal be allowed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge be set aside.

¶44

4. After hearing the submissions of the learned AGP, when this Court specifically put a question to him as to whether the judgment of this Court in case of State of Gujarat and anr. vs. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas & Anr. reported in 2011 (2) GLR 1290 and other three judgments relied upon by the respondent No.1 and as referred to in the impugned judgment herein had been set aside or the same were passed in the case of same different set of employees and was the petitioner similarly situated to those workmen who had been granted the benefit under the said judgment, learned AGP could not dispute the legal position and fairly stated that the judgments relied upon by the respondent No.1 before the learned Single Judge and the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge while granting the relief to the respondent No.1 herein was in case of the similarly situated employees and it had been implemented also.

¶45

5. In this conspectus of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that there is no error in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and it has been correctly held that the respondent No.1 is entitled to the benefits claimed by her on the

¶46

Page 4 of 5

¶47

C/LPA/1061/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/12/2021

¶48

basis of the judgments referred to and relied upon. In the premises, the present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. No order as to the cost.

¶49

ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021

¶50

In view of dismissal of main Letters Patent Appeal, the Civil Application for stay does not survive and stands disposed of.

¶51

(S.H.VORA, J)

¶52

(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE,J)

¶53

cmk

¶54

Page 5 of 5

State of Gujarat v. Babarbhai Mansukhbhai Vasava Since Decd. Throgh Legal Heir Surajben Wd/O Babarbhai Vasava

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Gujarat v. Babarbhai Mansukhbhai Vasava Since Decd. Throgh Legal Heir Surajben Wd/O Babarbhai Vasava

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chauhan Mahemudmiya Hasumiya Vs State of Gujarat

Vishalkumar Rajubhai Bhoi Vs State of Gujarat

Umesh S/O. Prakash Devre Vs Surat Mahanagar Palika

Ravikumar Pravinbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Rajit Kishan Chhatwani Vs State of Gujarat

Kiranben Narottambhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat