SCA/508320/2001 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5083 of 2001 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 ? ================================================== VORA HIMATLAL MANILAL - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s) ================================================== Appearance : MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR HEMANG PARIKH, AGP, for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. MR VIJAY H NANGESH for Respondent(s) : 3, ================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI SCA/508320/2001 2/5 JUDGMENT Date : 14/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the Government Resolution dated 10.06.1997 and the communications dated 09.10.2000 and 03.01.2001, issued by the respondent – State, at Annexure-F Collectively to the petition. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as an Accountant in the respondent – Nagarpalika on 10.06.1967 in the pay-scale of Rs.1640–Rs.2600 and was confirmed on the said post on 01.04.1970. During his tenure of service, the employees of the respondent – Nagarpalika had filed a reference u/s.12(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the labour Court, Bhavnagar. 3. On 13.12.1989 a compromise was arrived at between the employees' union and the respondent – Nargarpalika and consequently, the pay of the employees was revised. So far as the petitioner was concerned, his pay-scale was fixed at Rs.1640- Rs.2900. The petitioner voluntarily retired from service on 30.04.1990 and his pension was fixed on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 08.01.1985, which prevailing at the relevant point of time. SCA/508320/2001 3/5 JUDGMENT 4. On 29.09.1992 the respondent – State passed a Resolution for the purpose of giving pensionary benefits to employees who were appointed after 04.01.1963, on certain terms and conditions. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner gave consent to recover an amount of Rs.1,10,240/- from the pension, so as to avail the benefits of the said Resolution. However, the petitioner is not being granted pension as per the Resolution of 08.01.1985 and in fact, he is being granted pension as per the G.R. dated 10.06.1997. Being aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition. 5. Ms. S. K. Mandavia, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the G.R. dated 10.06.1997 will not apply in the case of the petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner retired from service in the year 1990 and the prevailing policy, i.e. the G.R. dated 08.01.1985, would govern his case. Therefore, the action of the respondents of giving retrospective effect of the G.R. dated 10.06.1997 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Mr. V. H. Nangesh, learned Advocate for respondent no.3, has submitted that pursuant to the scheme of 1992, the petitioner had not deposited the requisite amount and therefore, the petitioner does not become eligible to get the benefits of the G.R. dated 08.01.1985. Hence, the action of the respondent was completely justified and no interference is required from this Court in this petition. SCA/508320/2001 4/5 JUDGMENT 7. Mr. H. H. Parikh, learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State, has supported the action of the respondent – authority. However, he is not in a position to show that the G.R. dated 10.06.1997 could be applied retrospectively. 8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The petitioner retired from service on 30.04.1990 and therefore, his rights would be crystallized on the basis of the policy prevailing as on 30.04.1990 and not on the basis of any policy that might come into existence after the said date. 9. When the petitioner retired from service, the G.R. dated 08.01.1985 was in force and therefore, naturally, the petitioner would be governed by the G.R. dated 08.01.1985. The respondents have based their action on the basis of the G.R. dated 10.06.1997. However, in my opinion, the said G.R. of 1997 will not apply to the case of the petitioner inasmuch as it could not be given retrospective effect. The respondents have also not been able to show that the G.R. dated 10.06.1997 could be given retrospective effect. 10. So far as the liability of the respondent – Nagarpalika is concerned, the same will apply only after 10.06.1997. Since the petitioner has retired in 1990, the G.R. of 10.06.1997 could be given effect only prospectively and therefore, the pension of the SCA/508320/2001 5/5 JUDGMENT petitioner is to be fixed on the basis of the G.R. dated 08.01.1985. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of pension on the basis of the G.R. dated 08.01.1985. 11. In the premise, the petition is partly allowed. The respondent – Nagarpalika is directed to calculate the pension of the petitioner on the basis of the G.R. dated 08.01.1985 within a period of FOUR MONTHS from today and the consequential payments, will be cleared by respondent nos.1 and 2 within a period of TWO MONTHS thereafter. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*