Case: UNA NAGAR PALIKA Vs. KALIBEN BALUBHAI MAKWANA

In order to appreciate the issues involved in these appeals, few relevant facts need mentionThe appellant herein was the respondent whereas the five contesting respondents herein were the petitioners in the special civil applications(petitions) filed before the HighThe appellant is the?Municipality? also called Nagar Palika for the place called?Una? in the State of Gujarat. The five contesting respondents, out of themfour have expired and now represented by their legal representatives, were the employees of the appellant-Municipality.One of the respondents was appointed in the year 1990 whereas others were appointed in 1996 andOn their attaining the age of superannuation in the appellant?s services on different dates, all the five respondents requested the appellant to settle their claims for payment of pension and pensioneryThe appellant declined to grant any pensionery benefits (pension) to all the five respondents stating that they were neither eligible and nor entitled to claim the pension or/and any pensionery benefits from theThis gave rise to filing of the special civil applications (petitions) by the respondents against the appellant in the High Court of Gujarat being S.C.A. No. 3699 of 2014 and four others.The appellant as respondent contested theThe Single Judge of the High Court by passing separate orders on different dates allowed the petitions and held that the petitioners (respondents herein) are eligible and thus entitled to claim pension and pensionery benefits from the appellant being their employees and accordingly issued a writ ofmandamus against the appellant-Municipality directing payment of pension to all the petitioners therein (respondents herein) from the date of theirThe appellant (Municipality) felt aggrieved and filed intra court appeals before the Division Bench in the High Court.By common impugned order, the Division Bench dismissed the appeals giving rise to filing of these appeals by way of special leave in this Court by the Una Nagar Palika(Municipality).

Reasoning: In our considered opinion, the High Court was right in holding that the question involved in these appealsis covered by the earlier decision of the Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of Chief Officer vs.Mohamed Irshad Husenbhai Baloch and Others (supra) which was upheld by this Court by order dated 16.09.2013 andThe Division Bench was of the view and, in our view, rightly that the distinction sought to be made between the two groups of employees, namely, one coming from the Panchayat and then becoming the Municipal employees and the other directly becoming the Municipal employees was held to be of no significance because the appellant made the respondents members of the GPF contributions and 1 0went on to deduct regular contribution from their salary till the date of theirIn our view, the case at hand is covered by the earlier decision rendered in the case of Chief Officer vs.Mohamed Irshad Husenbhai Baloch and Others (supra) which stands upheld by this Court by order dated 16.09.2013. We are also of the view that the aforementioned distinction pointed out by the appellant for coming out of the clutches of the decision of Chief Officer vs. Mohamed Irshad Husenbhai Baloch and Others(supra) was also rightly found untenable by the High Court by assigning the properFirstly, we find that it was not filed before the High Court (writ court/Division Bench); Secondly, the writ court and the Division Bench did not refer it to;Thirdly, in any event, it is of no significance to decide the presentIts perusal shows that it applies to the cases of Panchayatemployees, who later became the Municipal employees.In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in these appeals.