CHANDRIKABEN HASMUKHBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-2013-7-399
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on July 10,2013

Chandrikaben Hasmukhbhai Patel Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the retired Assistant Teacher seeking to hold and declare that the petitioner is entitled and eligible to get pension and other retiral benefits with interest and to direct respondent No.3 District Education Officer to submit proposal to respondent No.1 to sanction and pay pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner.
(2.)IT is case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 12.6.1972 in Grant-in-Aid School and would have retired on 31.5.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation but on completing total qualifying service of 28 years, 6 months and 28 days, the petitioner made an application dated 8.3.2001 for voluntary retirement to be effective from 11.6.2001 and she was permitted to retire voluntarily from the said date.
It is the further case of the petitioner that her voluntary retirement was approved by the District Primary Education Officer and since the petitioner put in qualifying service for pension, respondent No. 6 school submitted pension case to respondent No.5 through respondent No.3.However, respondent No.5 returned the pension case of the petitioner stating that as per resolution dated 6.4.2002 of the Education Department, State of Gujarat introducing pension scheme for the primary teachers, the petitioner having retired voluntarily, is not entitled to pension under the said scheme. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner having retired after 1.1.1997 and before the date of introduction of the pension scheme and having opted for pension as required by the resolution dated 6.4.2002, the petitioner has become entitled to pension under the said resolution. It is the case of the petitioner that the stand taken by respondent No.5 that the petitioner since retired voluntarily is not entitled to pension under the said resolution is based on misconstruction of the said resolution and contrary to the provisions of the Bombay Civil Service Rules which have been made applicable by the said resolution providing for pension scheme.

(3.)AFFIDAVIT in reply is filed by the Education Inspector on behalf of the District Education Officer on 5.1.2004 opposing the petition on the ground that the benefit of pension under resolution dated 6.4.2002 could be made available only to those teachers who have retired on attaining the age of superannuation and not to the teachers who have retired taking voluntary retirement.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.