Biren Vaishnav, J. - (1.) Pension is not a 'bounty'. Several rounds of litigation, though have concluded the issue on hand, present respondents - Senior Citizens who have rendered selfless service in the academic field as members of the teaching and non-teaching staff have been deprived of their right of earning pension. Though, unequivocally held by catena of decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court, which this judgement only reiterates, respondents - original petitioners have had no option other than to be compelled to litigate for their rights because the State which is considered as a model employer still resists their claim for pension on the ground that such members had not exercised their options for pension.
(2.) In these batches of appeals before us, judgements rendered in four separate batches of petitions filed by the original petitioners - teaching/non teaching staff of different educational institutions are under challenge before us. They are : (I) Letters Patent Appeals No. 258 of 2017, 811 of 2017 and 1357 of 2017 arising out of a judgement rendered by a learned Single Judge (Coram : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sonia Gokani) dated 03.02.2016. (II) Letters Patent Appeal No. 2412 of 2017 arising out of the judgement of the learned Single Judge (Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Anjaria) dated 01.08.2016. (III) Letters Patent Appeals No. 94 of 2018, 2180 of 2017, 2291 to 2308 of 2017 arising out of the judgement of the learned Single Judge (Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala) dated 29.06.2017. (IV) Letters Patent Appeal No. 2259 of 2017 and Letters Patent Appeals No. 2260 & 2261 of 2017 with Letters Patent Appeal No. 2263 of 2017 to Letters Patent Appeal No. 2284 of 2017 arising out of the judgement of the learned Single Judge (Coram : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sonia Gokani) dated 11.07.2017.
(3.) The facts of the respective lead petitions as set out by the learned Single Judges in their respective judgements are reproduced hereinbelow, in order to avoid duplicity. 3.1 In Letters Patent Appeals where the order dated 03.02.2016 is under challenge, the lead petition was Special Civil Application No. 14953 of 2015, the facts of which are as under: "3. The petitioner joined his services as Tutor Demonstrator in the Science College on April 10, 1970 on completion of due process of selection. He had applied for the post of Lecturer advertised by the Gujarat University and was, accordingly, appointed on June 15, 1982. 4. Pursuant to the advertisement of the Gujarat University for filling in the vacant posts of Readers in the School of Science, once again, he was required to undertake the entire selection process. After completion of the said de novo process of selection, he was initially appointed on probation period of two years vide order dated July 07, 1990. The appointment was given to him specifically mentioning that the GPF, Pension and other benefits are admissible. 5. It is averred by the petitioner that he had undergone the process of selection once again when he came to be appointed as a Professor on September 07, 1998. It is, thus, the say of the petitioner that he had joined the service after April 01, 1982 on due selection process. Therefore, the petitioner would be covered under Clauses 4 and 6 of the Government Resolution dated October 15, 1984, which is made effective with effect from April 01, 1982. It is further his say that his appointment as reader and Professor in the respondent-College is a new and fresh appointment approved by the State Government and, therefore, on the respective posts of Reader and Professor, as the appointment was made prior to April 01, 1982, this would amount to 'recruitment' and the pension scheme would automatically be effective in the case of the petitioner. 6. By way of the said Government Resolution dated October 15, 1984, a scheme was introduced for Teaching and non-Teaching Staff in Affiliated Colleges. It is also averred by the petitioner that this issue has been decided while dealing with Special Civil Application No.29461 of 2007 on June 16, 2008, by this Court and, therefore also, the petitioner needs to be accorded the same treatment as has been given to the petitioners of the said petition. 6.1 The petitioner has sought to rely upon various authorities to substantiate his stand and eventually has sought for the following substantial reliefs : "11(b) To quash and set aside the respondent's action and inaction in not considering the case of the petitioner for pension by passing appropriate orders declaring him to be entitled to receive pension and further be pleased to declare that the petitioner's recruitment and appointment as Reader and Professor with effect from 7.7.90 and 7.9.98 is fresh recruitment therefore, he is entitled to pension as per the provisions of G.R. and further be pleased to direct the respondent to grant pension to the petitioner forthwith by considering the service rendered by him by issuing writ in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction so deemed fit and proper. (c) Be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to give benefits of GPF scheme by transferring account of applicant to GPF and further to give benefits of pension scheme under Resolution dated 15.10.1984 within 3 months from the date of order and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to start monthly pension immediately to serve the purpose of justice. (d) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondent to pay all pensionary benefits to the petitioner with 18% interest p.a. with effect from the date he retired. 7. At this stage, it would be profitable to place on record the details qua all the petitioners, which in the tabular form are as under : JUDGEMENT_46_LAWS(GJH)5_2019_1.html 3.2 In Letters Patent Appeal No. 2412 of 2017 which was preferred challenging the decision rendered in Special Civil Application No. 6317 of 2015 dated 01.08.2016, the facts were as under: "2. By filing the present petition the petitioner has prayed for-(i) to grant the pension and declare that the petitioner's recruitment as Principal with effect from 03rd May, 1997 is after 01st April, 1982, therefore, he is entitled to pension as per the provisions of G.R. and further direct the respondent to grant pension to the petitioner forthwith by considering all the service rendered by him in various educational institution as qualifying services for receiving pension and (ii) to pay all pensionary benefits to the petitioner with 18% interest p.a. with effect from the date he was retired. 3. The details of the service career of the petitioner is that he started his career as Tutor, subsequently appointed as Lecturer and worked in different colleges, and lastly at Navgujarat Commerce College, Ahmedabad and thereafter from 09th February, 1997 at Sardar Vallabhbhai Commerce College, Ahmedabad. In the same S.V. Commerce College, Ahmedabad, the petitioner was appointed as Principal and he worked on the post of Principal from 03rd May, 1997 till he retired on 31st March, 2001. 3.1 The appointment of the petitioner on the post of Principal was by regular selection. The State Government through Director of Education approved the appointment by order dated 14th August, 1997. It is stated by the petitioner that before joining as Principal at the S.V. Commerce College, he had given resignation as per the University statute, therefore his appointment was fresh appointment as a Principal of the College. It is the case of the petitioner that in light of Resolution dated 15th October, 1984 of the Education Department, petitioner's case is directly covered for grant of pension. 3.3 In Letters Patent Appeals No. 94 of 2018 and allied matters, the facts as per the lead Special Civil Application are that the petitioners/respondents were full time teaching and non-teaching employees of different Universities of the State of Gujarat and the colleges affiliated with the Universities of the State of Gujarat. The petitioners were constrained to approach the Court as they were not extended the benefit of the Pension Scheme and the opportunity to exercise that option was denied on the ground of financial implications. The learned Single Judge relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. D.R.R Sastri, 1997 1 SCC 514 directed that the State Government allow the petitioners to exercise the option and grant the benefit of pension in view of the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984. 3.4 In Letters Patent Appeal No. 2259 of 2017 and group matters, the learned Single Judge referred to facts of Special Civil Application No. 5006 of 2016 (Letters Patent Appeal No. 2261 of 2017). The facts so discussed are as under: 3. As all the petitions are identical in nature, this Court would refer to the facts of the case arising out of Special Civil Application No.5006 of 2016 for the sake of convenience and brevity and for examining the rival legal contentions urged in this group of petitions. 3.1 The petitioner possesses the qualification of Master of Arts (M.A.), Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in the subject of Gujarati. He joined the services with the Idar Anjana Patidar Arts and Commerce College, Idar, as a Lecturer and served there till March 04, 1987. 3.2 Thereafter, the petitioner vide order dated September 07, 1986, was appointed as Lecturer in the Post Graduate Department of Gujarat in Sardar Patel University and he joined the same on March 05, 1987. 3.3 The petitioner was subsequently promoted as a Reader on February 01, 1990 and then, His appointment as a Professor was with effect from July 01, 2000 in the Post Graduate Department of Gujarat in Sardar Patel University itself under the CAS scheme vide order dated July 13/14, 2000; and he continued to served there till his date of superannuation i.e. June 14, 2012. 3.4 The pension scheme for teaching staff in non-Government affiliated colleges and in the University was introduced vide Government Resolution dated October 15, 1984. Even if the petitioner has not given any option, he is entitled to pension because his appointment was dated March 05, 1987 i.e. after April 01, 1982. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court holding him entitled to pension as per the Government Resolution dated October 15, 1984 and thereby, to grant him pension forthwith by considering the services rendered by him. 4. At this stage, it would be appropriate to place on record the details qua the petitioners of respective petition, which in the tabular form are as under : JUDGEMENT_46_LAWS(GJH)5_2019_3.html Lecturer Lecturer 3.5 In all these appeals filed by the State of Gujarat, the respondents who were the original petitioners claimed that they, having been recruited in their respective college after 01.04.1982, were automatically governed by the pension scheme so framed by Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 for the teaching staff and subsequently mutatis mutandis extended to the non-teaching staff of the respective educational institutions.;