LAWS(GJH)-2010-7-343

SHARDABEN JAYANTILAL TANKARIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On July 22, 2010
SHARDABEN JAYANTILAL TANKARIA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for directing the respondent authorities to release the retiral benefits as well as pension in favour of the petitioners forthwith.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were working as 'Tedagar' with the respondent-authorities and they have retired from their service with effect from 31st December 2001, 30th April 2003 and 31st march 2003 respectively on their attaining the age of superannuation. However, it the contention of the petitioners that their retiral benefits have not been given to them as well as their pension has not been fixed by the respondent-authorities. It is submitted that in pursuance of judgment and award dated 12th January 1998 passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot, the respondent-authorities were directed to make the petitioners permanent. It is submitted that in pursuance of the same, the representations made by the petitioners, especially petitioner Nos.1 and 3, the Chief Officer, Kalavad Municipal Borough clarified that as there is only one sanctioned post of 'Tedagar' as per the set up of Municipal Borough, the case of the petitioners does not fall within the said sanctioned set up nor their pay-scales have been fixed as per the Rules and Regulations, the objections raised by the Local Fund cannot be removed. Though the petitioners made several representations to grant them their retiral benefits and family pension, the respondent-authorities have failed to do so. Hence, present petition.

(3.) Mr.P.V. Hathi, learned counsel appearing of the respondent No.4, has relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.4 and submitted that in view of non-sanctioning of posts, the petitioners are not entitled for retiral benefits. Further, the petitioners have not been appointed as per the Rules and Regulations like other regularly appointed employees. Therefore, they are not entitled to pension and pensionery benefits. It is submitted that the petitioners have been paid the amount of provident fund due to them. Hence, there is no question of granting any pension and pensionery benefits to the petitioners in absence of any sanctioned post in the set up. Hence, present petition is required to be dismissed.