Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

The State Of Gujarat vs Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel on 18 February, 2022

Bench: M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna

     ITEM NO.10                Court 12 (Video Conferencing)              SECTION III

                               S U P R E M E C O U R T O F        I N D I A
                                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C)              No.     1109/2022

     (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-10-2020
     in LPA No. 762/2020 passed by the High Court Of Gujarat at
     Ahmedabad)

     THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.                                       Petitioner(s)

                                                 VERSUS

     TALSIBHAI DHANJIBHAI PATEL                                        Respondent(s)

     ( IA No.11914/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
     JUDGMENT and IA No.11915/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. )

     Date : 18-02-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :
                         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
                         HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

     For Petitioner(s)             Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Adv.
                                   Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR

     For Respondent(s)              Mr.   Manoj K. Mishra, AOR
                                    Mr.   Umesh Dubey, Adv.
                                    Mr.   A.A. Bhasme, Adv.
                                    Mr.   Prateek Som, Adv.
                                    Mr.   Sudhir S. Rawat, Adv.
                                    Mr.   Vishrov Mukerjee, Adv

                         UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                            O R D E R

It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continues service shall Signature Not Verified not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable.

welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a 16:53:56 IST Reason: stand.

Contd.

 - 2 -

In the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in directing the State to pay pensionary benefits to the respondent who has retired after rendering more than 30 years service.

Hence, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(NEETU SACHDEVA)                                        (NISHA TRIPATHI)
COURT MASTER (SH)                                        BRANCH OFFICER