PATEL ISMAIL AHMED ISA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Patel Ismail Ahmed Isa
STATE OF GUJARAT
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:
(A) To direct the respondents to give to the petitioner the benefit of Government Resolution dated 10.1.1996 and to increase the Dearness Allowance from 20% to 97% of basic pay for calculating gratuity, as per Annexure -B to the petition.
(B) To direct the respondents to treat the date of retirement of the petitioner as of 1.4.1995 and to grant higher pay scale of 9 -18 -27 years as per Government G.R. by setting aside annexure E2.
(C) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Government Resolution dated 10th January, 1996, at Annexure -B hereinabove, and to grant consequential benefit of payment.
5. Interim relief:
Pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to issue direction to the respondents to calculate provisionally the death -cum -retirement gratuity on the basis of Government Resolution dated 10.1.1996 and to pay to the petitioner provisionally.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed as Gram Sevak with the respondent No.3. He joined the services as such on 1.4.1964. After serving for more than 31 years, the petitioner preferred an application for voluntary retirement with effect from 31.3.1995. The request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was granted by the respondent No.3, which is evident from a perusal of the order dated 22/23.3.1995.
Accordingly, the petitioner stood voluntarily retired with effect from 31.3.1995 A.N. After about five years, the petitioner has preferred the present petition praying that he should have been given the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 10.1.1996 and the D.A. paid to him should be increased from 20% to 97% of basic pay for calculating the gratuity as per the said Government Resolution.
(3.) MS .S.S.Pathan learned advocate for Mr.A.M.Raval, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that no doubt the petitioner has retired on 31.3.1995 but he has performed his duties on 31.3.1995 and as per the note in his service book, he is entitled to receive pension from 1.4.1995 and, therefore, the benefit of Government Resolution dated 10.1.1996 should be extended to him and his date of retirement should be taken to be 1.4.1995 and not 31.3.1995. It is forcefully contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by retiring the petitioner on 31.3.1995 instead of 1.4.1995, the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution have been violated and he has also been denied the benefit of higher pay -scale on the basis of another Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994 on the ground that he has retired on 31.3.1995. It is, therefore, submitted that the prayers made in the petition be granted.
Ms.Reeta Chandarana, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has submitted that the Government Resolution dated 10.1.1996 is applicable to employees who have retired on superannuation or have died on or after 1.4.1995 and it does not cover the case of the petitioner who has resigned voluntarily with effect from 31.3.1995. It is also submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the Government Resolution dated 10.1.1996 clearly specifies the cut -off date of 1.4.1995 and only the employees who retired or died on or after the said cut -off date can be given the benefit of the said Government Resolution and as the petitioner has retired before 1.4.1995, the Government Resolution will not be applicable to him. In support of the above submissions, Ms.Reeta Chandarana, learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed reliance upon Motia Devi and others v. Municipal Corporation, Faridabad - 2005(4) SCC 603.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.