LAWS(GJH)-2006-12-34

SULTAN IBRAHIM MANSURI Vs. APURVA DAVE AGP

Decided On December 19, 2006
SULTAN IBRAHIM MANSURI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

(2.) Today, Civil Application No.14781 of 2006 has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to fix the matter for final hearing. Therefore, considering the fact that petitioner is aged about 71 years old and pensionary benefit is not paid to the petitioner by the respondents only on the ground that daily wager service has been excluded in calculating the qualifying service and, therefore, petitioner remained without pension. Therefore, on being request made by learned advocate, Mr.Supehia, with consent of learned AGP, Mr.Dave, main SCA No.4479 of 2000 is taken up for final hearing today.

(3.) Brief facts of the present petition are that the petitioner was working as work charge Kadia and retired on 31.1.1996 on attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, he applied for pension but, same has been refused on the ground that he had put in less than 10 years' service as a work charge employee and he has been paid gratuity on the basis of service as work charge employee. The petitioner was engaged as a daily wager from 1973 and since 2nd February,1987, he was appointed as work charge employee. The request of the petitioner for pensionary benefit has been rejected by letter dated 5.10.1999 by the respondents, therefore, in the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.10.1999. Annexure-E, Page-17, is the letter dated 5.10.1999 where the request of petitioner for pensionary benefit and daily wage service has been rejected only on the ground that petitioner was not remained continued as work charge employee for more than 10 years as per Rule 41(2). The case of the petitioner has been recommended by the Deputy Executive Engineer, Baroda by letter dated 8.5.1997 that petitioner is entitled the benefit of pension while considering the service as a daily wager. However, this recommendation made by Deputy Executive Engineer, Baroda has not been considered by the respondents. Learned advocate, Mr.Supehia, relied upon the decision of this Court in SCA No.2836 of 1998 dated 27.8.1998 and SCA No.788 of 2005 dated 14.12.2005. Affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents raising the same contention that petitioner is not entitled the benefit of pension while considering the service rendered as daily wager. The respondents have relied upon the Service Rules.