Gujarat High Court
Sureshchandra Sanjulal Pandya vs State Of Gujarat & 4 on 15 June, 2016
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
C/SCA/10697/1995 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10697 of 1995
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
==========================================================
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 or any order made
thereunder ?
==========================================================
SURESHCHANDRA SANJULAL PANDYA....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 4....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NILESH A PANDYA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. GOUMTA, ASST. GOVT. PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1 , 5
MR HS MUNSHAW, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3 - 4
MR. JAY M THAKKAR, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 15/06/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner (since deceased), an employee of the Gram Panchayat, has prayed for the following reliefs;
"(a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, against the respondents to fix up the salary of the Page 1 of 15 HC-NIC Page 1 of 15 Created On Fri Jun 17 02:51:16 IST 2016 C/SCA/10697/1995 JUDGMENT petitioner in accordance with the Rules of the Payment, 1969, 1975 and 1987 and pay the difference alongwith 18% interest to the petitioner and to pay the pension in accordance with the pay which may be fixed up by the respondents, regularly on or before of 7th of each month, since April, 1993, and to release all other legal benefits including P.F. Dues which have been accrued in favour of the petitioner incidental and consequential to the retirement of the petitioner at the earliest;
(aa) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 7th February, 2001 passed by the respondent No.1 which is annexed hereto as Annexure 'I' to this petition and also be pleased to direct the respondent, their agent and servants to pay all the monetary benefit as well as the pensionary benefits in accordance with law with 18% interest, as the petitioner is regular employee of an retired from the Government and to give all the benefits as prayed for within reasonable time.
(c ) pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, the respondent No. 1 and 2 be directed to pay Rs. 1500/- ad hoc payment towards pension of the petitioner, which may be adjusted from the amount of the pension, which is due and payable since April 1993, by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to the petitioner;
(d) restrain the respondent No. 2 to recover the amount as per Annexure 'D'.
(e) grant any other and further relief which may be deemed fit in the interest of justice;
(f) to award the cost of this petition."
2. The facts of this case may be summarized as under;
2.1 The petitioner was appointed as an Octroi Clerk in the office of the respondent No.2 on the strength of a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat.
Page 2 of 15
HC-NIC Page 2 of 15 Created On Fri Jun 17 02:51:16 IST 2016
C/SCA/10697/1995 JUDGMENT
2.2 In 1966, he came to be promoted on the post of the Recovery Clerk.
2.3 In 1979, he was promoted to the post of the Accountant.
2.4 On 31st March, 1993, he retired from the service.
2.5 This petition was filed with a complaint that the pension is not being paid to him.
2.6 On 28th September, 2000, the following order was passed;
"1. It is really shocking that a retired person is sought to be made shuttlecock in between T.D.O. And D.D.O. by the State Government. It is a case where on retirement of the petitioner, the Gram Panchayat concerned has provisionally granted pension to him by the resolution, reference of which has been made in the special civil application. This resolution of the Gram Panchayat was set aside by the T.D.O. under the order dated 1-6-1994. Against this order of T.D.O., the petitioner filed an appeal to D.D.O. but he has not entertained the same on the ground that he has no jurisdiction in the matter. Then he approached to the State Government in the matter but the State Government felt content and satisfied by directing that he may approach to the D.D.O..
2. The Secretary to the Department of Panchayat and Gram Gruha Nirman, New Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar is directed to decide this matter of the petitioner whether he is entitled for pension or not. If the petitioner is entitled for pension then he has to see that the petitioner get all monetary benefits of the same. This exercise has to be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. This petition itself may be considered to be a representation-cum-appeal of the petitioner. Where the claim of the petitioner is Page 3 of 15 HC-NIC Page 3 of 15 Created On Fri Jun 17 02:51:16 IST 2016 C/SCA/10697/1995 JUDGMENT acceptable for pension, all arrears has to be paid to him within a period of 15 days next and the petitioner shall also be entitled for interest on the arrears at the rate of 18% p.a. from the due date. Compliance of the order has to be reported to the Court. In case the matter goes against the petitioner, liberty is granted to him for revival of this special civil application by filing a simple note. Rule and special civil application stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs."
3 The State Government has filed an affidavit-in-reply, duly affirmed by the Deputy Secretary, Panchayat Rural Housing and Rural Development Department, inter alia, stating as under;
"3. With reference to para 2, I say that the petitioner was not appointed as an Octroi Clerk as per Nasawadi Gram Panchayat Resolution No. 48 dated 6.3.1962. I say that the power to appoint Octroi Inspector, Naka Karkun, Sipai ect. Is on temporary basis. Out of these posts, the posts of four Naka Karkun and one Peon were sanctioned by the Collector's office vide its order No. VPF/4/8/62 dated 5.5.1962. I respectfully submit that on perusing the same, it is not clear that the Petitioner was appointed as Octroi Clerk and I put the petition on strict proof at evidence regarding his appointment as Naka Karkun.
4. With reference to para 3, I deny that the Petitioner is promoted. I say that he was given appointment vide Panchayat Resolution No. 54 dated 2.2.1966 as a Recovery Clerk on fixed pay of Rs. 100/- therefore I say that it cannot be said that he is promoted. The petitioner was not recruited as per the section 203 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act-1961.
5. With reference to para 4, I say and submit that as per the Constitution of the Gujarat Panchayat Services Selection Board and the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Committee, the various posts under the Gram Panchayat were brought under the purview of the Services Selection Agencies. The State Government has also framed rules namely the Gujarat Panchayat Services Selection Board (Constitution) Rules, 1964 and the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Committee Page 4 of 15 HC-NIC Page 4 of 15 Created On Fri Jun 17 02:51:16 IST 2016 C/SCA/10697/1995 JUDGMENT (Constitution) Rules, 1964. It is clearly provided in the said rules that consultation is mandatory of services Selection Board or the Committee, as the case may be, before filling up of any post under the Gram Panchayat as per the Gujarat Panchayat Services (Appointing Authorities) Rules, 1967. It is respectfully submitted that neither consultation Rules, 1964 nor the Appointing Authorities Rules were adhered to. The Naswadi Gram Panchayat, being an appointing authority under the Gujarat Panchayat Services (Appointing Authorities) Rule, 1967, did not consult nor follow these procedures while making appointment after 1st April, 1963. I, therefore, say and submit that the Petitioners appointment cannot be considered to be valid and legal appointment and he cannot be treated at par with other Panchayat employees in accordance with the said rules.
6. With reference to para 6, I say that the Petitioner was retired on 31st March, 1993 after noon hours. His pension was not fixed by the competent authority. But ad-hoc pension of Rs. 500/- was sanctioned by the Sarpanch which was totally wrong and without adhearing to any rule in that behalf. I say that the Petitioner was a member of the Contributory Provident Fund and Naswadi Gram Panchayat has given contribution in the Bank Account as per Rule, the petitioner is not entitled for the Contributory Provident Fund. As per the judgement of SCA No. 9264/93, dated 6/3/1998 the petitioner was not entitled to get all benefits. But he is entitled as per the terms and condition of the grant Panchayat at the time of his appointment.
7. With reference to para 7, I say that the claim of the petitioner for pensionary benefits cannot stand because he cannot be treated as Panchayat servant working under the Panchayat Services. He is not recruited after following proper recruitment procedure and at the most his recruitment may be treated as ad-hoc appointment. I say that in that regard, the State Government cannot be regarded as responsible for payment of pensionary benefits to the Petitioner. Yet another reason as to why the petitioner is not entitled for any pensionary benefit is that he was a Neither menber of Panchayat Service's or State Services and he got the Contributory Provident Fund and the gram Panchayat has paid his contribution, and from Gram Panchayat's own Fund as per the Page 5 of 15 HC-NIC Page 5 of 15 Created On Fri Jun 17 02:51:16 IST 2016 C/SCA/10697/1995 JUDGMENT provision of the Gujarat Panchayat Act-1961, Section
228.
8. With reference to para 9, I say that the step taken by the Respondent No. 3 is just and proper. As per provisions of Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1961, Section 294(1) and 249(1) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993, the Petitioner is not entitled for any kind of pensionary benefits as his appointment is not made as per the rules.
9. With reference to para 12, I say that the question of fixation of Petitioner's pay is the responsibility of the Naswadi Gram Panchayat and the Government is not responsible for the same.
10. With reference to para 16, I say that revision of pay scale, 1969, 1975 and 1987 were applicable to those Gra,/Nagar Panchayats which were Municipalities before March 1963 and after the enactment of the Panchayat Act, they are converted into Gram/Nagar Panchayat from 1st April, 1963. Naswadi Gram Panchayat is not a converted Gram Panchayat and the case of the petitioner is not covered under the Supreme Court Judgement dated 27.1,1983 (AIR-1984 SC 161). It is further respectfully submitted that the Petitioner's case is purely covered by the Judgement in Special Civil Application No. 9264/93 dated 6.3.98. Annexed hereto and marked Annexure 'I' to this reply is a copy of the said judgement."
4. Thus, the stance of the State Government is very clear. According to the State Government, the petitioner was not appointed by way of any regular recruitment process. He was appointed on the strength of a resolution No.48 passed by the Panchayat dated 6th March, 1962. According to the Government, the late petitioner could not be said to be a member of the Panchayat Service in accordance with Section 203 of the Panchayat Act. It is also the stance of the State Government that it was for the Panchayat to take an appropriate decision in this regard.
Page 6 of 15
HC-NIC Page 6 of 15 Created On Fri Jun 17 02:51:16 IST 2016
C/SCA/10697/1995 JUDGMENT
5. On behalf of the Naswadi Gram Panchayat, an affidavit has been filed, inter alia, stating as under;
"9 With regard to the averments made in para 6 of the petition, it is stated that the petitioner was retired from the service on attaining the age of 58 years. A request of the petitioner for pension was sympathetically considered by the Gram Panchayat and it was resolved on 30th March, 1993 to pay adhoc pension of Rs. 500/- per month to the petitioner subject to Audit and approval of the respondent no. 5 herein. A copy of the said Resolution dated 30th March, 1993 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 'A' to this reply.
10....
11. With regard to the averments made in para 8 of the petition, it is stated that correct facts are not mentioned by the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner requested the respondent no. 2 to increase hi pension to Rs. 1500/- per month. The said request was considered by the Gram Panchayat in its meeting dated 30th March, 1994 and it was resolved to pay Rs. 1000/- per month with effect from April, 1994 and it was resolved to obtain permission from the Competent Authority. A copy of the said Resolution dated 30 March, 1994 is annexed herewith th and marked as Annexure B to this reply.
12. It is stated that a copy of the Resolution dated 30th March, 1994 was forwarded to Taluka Development Officer, Nasvadi and through an order dated 1st June, 1994, the Taluka Development Officer, Nasvadi suspended the said Resolution dated 30th March, 1994. A copy of the said order dated 1st June, 1994 is annexed herewith and marked as annexure 'C' to this reply. In view of these facts, it was decided not to pay any pension to the petitioner and it was also ordered to recover the amount already paid to the petitioner towards pension. A copy of the said order passed by the Gram Panchayat is annexed herewithand marked as annexure 'D' to this reply. At this stage, it is also pointed out that the earlier Resolution dated 30th March, 1993 through which it was decided to pay adhoc pension of Rs. 500/- to the petitioner was not forwarded to the Taluka Page 7 of 15 HC-NIC Page 7 of 15 Created On Fri Jun 17 02:51:16 IST 2016 C/SCA/10697/1995 JUDGMENT Panchayat.
12.1 It is stated that the Officers of the respondent no. 5 audited Books of Accounts of the Gram Panchayat for the year 1993-94 and Auditor's remarks were made to the effect that without obtaining any permission from the Competent authority, the amount of adhoc pension was paid to the petitioner. A copy of the said audit remarks is annexed herewith and marked as annexure 'E' to this reply. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not being paid the pension.
13...
14. With regard to the averments made in para 12 of the petition, it is stated that as the respondent Taluka Panchayat has suspended the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat for payment of the pension and the respondent no. 5 has taken objection thereto, no pension can be paid to the petitioner. At this stage, it is stated that the petitioner is the first employee of the Gram Panchayat who has retired from the active service. It is pointed out that the Gram Panchayat on its own decided to make payment of adhoc pension to the petitioner, but it is now clear to the Gram Panchayat that no such pension can be paid to the petitioner in lieu of the Government policy which prohibits such payment. It is stated that apart from that there are in all 28 employees in the Gram Panchayat and they are likely to retire in near future. It the Gram Panchyat starts to make payment of the pension to all theses employees then it would definitely create financial crises and ultimately public works and amenities would suffer. It is stated that all these employees including the petitioner are employed by the Gram Panchayat on its own without taking necessary permissions from the higher authorities and payment of salary and other benefits were being paid by the Gram Panchayat from its 'own funds'. It is stated that the source of the income of the Gram Panchayat are very limited as it survives mainly on income of octroi and properly tax as well as water tax.
14.1 It is stated that in the year 1983, the Gram Panchayat has evolved a scheme Contributory Provident Page 8 of 15 HC-NIC Page 8 of 15 Created On Fri Jun 17 02:51:16 IST 2016 C/SCA/10697/1995 JUDGMENT Fund (CPF). The petitioner was also member of the said scheme and accordingly the Gram Panchayat was depositing its contribution every month and at the time of retirement of the petitioner, total balance in the account of the petitioner was Rs. 19,657.90. It is stated that the petitioner is paid Rs. 9828.80 ps and rest of the amount is lying with the Gram Panchayat. It is stated that the Gram Panchayat is ready and willing to pay the said amount, but it is clarified that there cannot be payment of any pension. It is also submitted that as Contributory Provident Fund Scheme was implemented, there cannot be dual benefits to the petitioner of pension as well as Contributory Provident Fund."
6. Thus, it appears from the stance of the Gram Panchayat that the C.P.F, i.e., the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme was introduced in the year 1983. The petitioner enrolled himself as one of the members of the said scheme and was depositing his own contribution every month till the date of his retirement. It is the stance of the Gram Panchayat that, in all, Rs.19,657.90 was credited in the account of the petitioner on the date of his retirement. It also appears that Rs.9828.80 Paisa was paid to the petitioner. The balance amount is still lying with the Panchayat, and the Panchayat is ready and willing to pay the balance amount.
7. On behalf of the Taluka Panchayat, an affidavit-in-reply has been filed, duly affirmed by the Taluka Development Officer, inter alia, stating as under;
"6. With regard to the averments made in para 2 of the petition, it is stated that Nasvadi Taluka Panchayat and/or Baroda District Panchayat has not appointed the petitioner even on a post of Octroi Clerk or any other Clerk of Nasvadi Group Gram Panchayat. It is also stated that the respondent no. 3 was no where concerned and connected with the appointment of the petitioner. As per Page 9 of 15 HC-NIC Page 9 of 15 Created On Fri Jun 17 02:51:16 IST 2016 C/SCA/10697/1995 JUDGMENT knowledge and information of the respondent no. 3, the petitioner was appointed by the respondent no. 2 on its own. In other words, the respondent no. 3 is not at all an appointing authority of a disciplinary authority or concerned in any other manner. It is stated that the petitioner is not at all appointed by the District Panchayat Service Selection Committee or even Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board of the State of Gujarat. It appears that the petitioner was appointed by the Gram Panchayat on its own and throughout the service career of the petitioner, he was paid his salary and other benefits by the Gram Panchayat on its own funds. It is stated that the petitioner was never given any benefits including the salary of the Taluka Panchayat or the District Panchayat or by the State of Gujarat. Hence, as mentioned herinabove, the respondent no. 3 is not at all concerned.
6.1 From the averments of the petitioner and record produced along with that, it also transpires that there is no specific appointment order of the petitioner issued by the Gram Panchayat. It appears that the District Collector, Baroda has only sanctioned four posts of Octroi Clerk and one post of a Peon for a temporary period, but the petitioner has not produced any appointment order issued by the Gram Panchayat.
7. With regard to the averments made in para 3 of the petition, it is again stated that the respondent no. 3 and 4 were never consulted at any stage with regard to appointment, pay scale or any other posting. However, it is clear from the record that the petitioner was only shifted from the post of Octroi Clerk to the post of Recovery Clerk and that cannot be treated/considered as promotion.
8. With regard to the averments made in para 4 of the petition, it is stated that it is an internal matter of the Gram Panchayat and no approval of the Taluka Panchayat or the District Panchayat is obtained. It is stated that such post is not sanctioned by the Development Commissioner of the State of Gujarat under the provisions of Gujarat Panchayat Service Rules.
9. With regard to the averments made in para 5 of the petition, it is stated that a Resolution was passed by the Page 10 of 15 HC-NIC Page 10 of 15 Created On Fri Jun 17 02:51:16 IST 2016 C/SCA/10697/1995 JUDGMENT Gram Panchayat and under that Resolution certain benefits were given to the petitioner, but at no stage the Taluka Panchayat or the District Panchayat was consulted for any orders or approval and no such approval was obtained and hence the said action of the Gram Panchayat is not binding to the District Panchayat.
10. With regard to the averments made in para 6 of the petition, it is stated that as the petitioner is not an employee of the Taluka Panfchayat, District Panchayat or the State Government, he is not entitled to any retiremental benefit like Pension, Gratuity etc. and hence the respondent no. 3 and the respondent no. 4 are not liable to pass any such benefits. However, it is stated that the benefit of adhhoc pension of Rs. 500/- per month was given by the Gram Panchayat on its own, after passing a Resolution and the said payment was made its 'own funds'. It is stated that such resolution is never approved by any higher authority.
11. With regard to the averments made in para 7 of the petition, it is stated that as mentioned hereinabove, the petitioner is not entitled to any retiremental benefits as there is no such scheme evolved by the State of Gujarat.
12. With regard to the averments made in para 8 of the petition, it is submitted that such papers were not forwarded by the respondent no. 2 to the respondent no. 5 through the Taluka Panchayat, even through it is a higher authority and supervisory authority and in charge of the over all administration. Hence, the respondent no. 3 is not conversant with the said proceedings.
13. With regard to the averments made in para 9 of the petition, it is stated that the respondent no. 2 had not sent the Resolution dated 30th March, 1993 to the respondent no. 3 and/pr 4 through which it was resolved to pay adhoc pension of Rs. 500/- to the petitioner. Hence, the respondent no. 3 is not conversant with the same and hence no actions were taken thereon.
14. With regard to the averments made in para 10 of the petition, it is stated that as the petitioner approached the Gram Panchayat for monthly pension of Rs. 1500/-, the same was considered and ultimately a Resolution no. 249 dated 30th March 1994 was passed through which it Page 11 of 15 HC-NIC Page 11 of 15 Created On Fri Jun 17 02:51:16 IST 2016 C/SCA/10697/1995 JUDGMENT was resolved, subject to approval of the competent authority, that the petitioner should be paid Rs. 1000/- per month towards pension. A copy of the said Resolution no. 349 is annexed herewith and marked as annexure 'A' to this reply. The said resolution was forwarded to the Taluka Panchayat on 13th May 1994 for approval. A copy of the said letter dated 13th May, 1994 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 'B' to this reply. As the petitioner is not entitled to any retiremental benefits as per the Government Circular dated 25th April 1986, the respondent no. 3 suspended the said Resolution of the Gram Panchayat through his order dated 1st June, 1994. A copy of the said circular dated 25th April, 1986 as well as a copy of the order dated 1st June, 1994 are annexed herewith and marked as annexures 'C' and 'D' respectively to this reply. It is stated that as an amount of Rs. 500/- per month was wrongly paid to the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat, it was also ordered that it should be recovered. While passing the said orders, the respondent no. 3 has taken into consideration the Auditor's remarks made for the year 1993-94 by the respondent no. 5. A copy of the said Auditor's remarks is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 'E' to this petition."
8. The stance of the Taluka Panchayat is also very clear as reflected from the reply referred to above.
9. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the District Panchayat also, duly affirmed by the District Development Officer, inter alia, stating as under;
"6. With regard to the averments made in para 2 of the petition, it is stated that Baroda District Panchayat has not appointed the petitioner even on a post of Octroi Clerk or any other Clerk of Naswadi Group Gram Panchayat. It is also stated that the respondent no. 4 was no where concerned and connected with the appointment of the petitioner. As per knowledge and information of the respondent no. 4, the petitioner was appointed by the respondent no. 2 on its own. In other words, the respondent no. 4 is not at all an appointing Page 12 of 15 HC-NIC Page 12 of 15 Created On Fri Jun 17 02:51:16 IST 2016 C/SCA/10697/1995 JUDGMENT authority or a disciplinary authority or concerned in any other manner. It is stated that the petitioner is not at all appointed by the District Panchayat Service Selection Committee or even Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board of the State of Gujarat. It appears that the petitioner was appointed by the Gram Panchayat on its own and throughout the service career of the petitioner, he was paid his salary and other benefits by the Gram Panchayat on its own funds. It is stated that the petitioner was never given any benefits including the salary by the Taluka Panchayat or the District Panchayat or by the State of Gujarat. Hence, as mentioned hereinabove, the respondent no. 4 is not at all concerned.
7. With regard to the averments made in para 3 of the petition, it is again stated that the respondent no. 4 was never consulted at any stage with regard to appointment, pay scale or any other posting. However, it is clear from the record that the petitioner was only shifted from the post of Octroi Clerk to the post of Recovery Clerk and that cannot be treated/considered as promotion.
8. With regard to the averments made in para 4 of the petition, it is stated that it is an internal matter of the Gram Panchayat and no approval of the Taluka Panchayat or the District Panchayat is obtained. It is stated that such post is not sanctioned by the Development Commissioner of the State of Gujarat under the provisions of Gujarat Panchayat Service Rules.
9. With regard to the averments made in para 5 of the petition, it is stated that a Resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat and under that Resolution certain benefits were given to the petitioner, but at no stage the Taluka Panchayat or the District Panchayat were consulted for any orders or approval were obtained and hence the said action of the Gram Panchayat is not binding to the District Panchayat.
10. With regard to the averments made in para 6 of the petition, it is stated that as the petitioner is not an employee of the District Panchayat or the State Government, he is not entitled to any retiremental benefits like pension, Gratuity etc and hence the Page 13 of 15 HC-NIC Page 13 of 15 Created On Fri Jun 17 02:51:16 IST 2016 C/SCA/10697/1995 JUDGMENT respondent no. 4 is not liable to pass any such benefits. However, it is stated that the benefits of adhoc pension of Rs. 500/- per month was given by the Gram Panchayat on its own, after passing a Resolution and the said payment was made from its 'own funds'. It is stated that such resolution is never approved by any higher authority.
11. With regard to the averment made in para 7 of the petition, it is stated that as mentioned hereinabove, the petitioner is not entitled to any retiremental benefit as there is no such scheme evolved by the State of Gujarat.
13. With regard to the averments made in para 8 and 9 of the petition, it does not pertain to the respondent no. 4 and it has no knowledge thereof and hence no comments are offered thereon.
14. With regard to the averments made in para 10 of the petition, it is stated that in fact the petitioner is not entitled to any retirmental benefits. It is also stated that apart is not an employee of the District Panchayat and hence in no way the District Panchayat is liable to pay any retiremental benefits. It is pointed out that the respondent no. 4 & 4 is not at all conversant with regard to the appointment of the petitioner, different pay scales paid to him as well as adhoc amount of Rs. 500/- per month being paid to his provisional pension by the Gram Panchayat. In other words, the District Panchayat is never intimated by the Gram Panchayat about the petitioner's service career and the benefits being paid to him."
10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the deceased petitioner was entitled to receive pension on attaining superannuation. The picture is more than clear. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1962 by the Gram Panchayat. He was appointed by virtue of a resolution. I have already discussed the stance of the respondents. It also appears that he was a member of the C.P.F. On the date of his Page 14 of 15 HC-NIC Page 14 of 15 Created On Fri Jun 17 02:51:16 IST 2016 C/SCA/10697/1995 JUDGMENT retirement, an amount of about Rs.20,000/- was credited in his C.P.F. Account. He was also paid about Rs.10,000/-. The balance amount is still with the Panchayat.
11. The law in this regard is well settled. The petitioner could not be said to have been regularly recruited. He could not be said to be the member of the Panchayat Service in terms of Section 203 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act.
12. In view of the above, no case could be said to have been made out for pension. However, the Gram Panchayat is directed to make the balance payment of Rs.10,000/- towards the C.P.F with interest at the rate of 8% to the legal heirs of the deceased employee, who have been brought on record today, within a period of one month by way of an account payee cheque after proper identification.
13. With the above, this writ application fails and is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.
Direct service is permitted.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) Vahid Page 15 of 15 HC-NIC Page 15 of 15 Created On Fri Jun 17 02:51:16 IST 2016