Gujarat High Court
Ajay vs State on 17 June, 2010
Author: Ks Jhaveri
Bench: Ks Jhaveri
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1748/2000 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1748 of 2000
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
AJAY
N GANDHI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
AM RAVAL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MRS KRINA CALLA AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,3 -
4.
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for Respondent(s) : 2,
MR BHARAT T RAO
for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 17/06/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-
"[A] To release the retirement benefits as claimed at Annexure-M i.e. the amount of Provident Fund, Leave encashment, difference in Dearness allowances, amount of group insurance, amount of gratuity and other pensionary benefits.
[B] To hold that not providing the pensionary benefit to the employee who resigned from Govt. Service under Rule 25o is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and to held that sub-clause 1 of rule 250(a) of BCSR is in violation of article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground that for category 2 and 3 of sub-clause 1 of rule 250 there are provisions under rule 251 of he BCSR for compassionate and compensation pension.
[C] To grant interest at the rate of 18% on delayed payment of retirement benefits after 1989 till the realization of amount.
[D] & [E] ...... "
2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the services of Primary Health Center in the year 1979. In the year 1982, the petitioner was transferred to Sanad Nagar Panchayat and he worked as such till 1989. On account of some family problems, the petitioner on 07.08.1989, tendered his resignation along with one months' notice pay and the receipt thereof. The resignation of the petitioner was accepted by the respondent-authority vide order dated 22.02.1996. Pursuant thereto the petitioner made a representation to the respondent-authorities for release of his retirement dues and other allowances. It is the case of the petitioner that though several representations were made to the respondents-authorities for release of his retirement dues, the same has not been granted till date. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It appears that the petitioner has resigned from the service w.e.f. 07.08.1989 and have not voluntarily retired from the service. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to claim pensionary benefits having resigned from the service. However, under the provisions of revision of Pension Rules, 1950 pensionary benefits are given to a person who had either retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation or had voluntarily or compulsorily retired from the services. In the present case, the petitioner has tendered his resignation due to family circumstances and that he had also paid one month's salary in lieu of notice period. Looking to the facts of the case, more particularly when the petitioner himself has resigned from the service, he is not entitled for any pensionary benefits available to the Government employee.
4. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
[K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/ Top