Una Nagar Palika vs Kaliben Balubhai Makwana .

2) In   order   to   appreciate   the   issues   involved   in these appeals, few relevant facts need mention infra.

3) The   appellant   herein   was   the   respondent whereas the five contesting respondents herein were 2 the   petitioners   in   the   special   civil applications(petitions) filed before the High Court.

4) The appellant is the “Municipality” also called Nagar Palika for the place called “Una” in the State of Gujarat. The five contesting respondents, out of them   four   have   expired   and   now   represented   by their   legal   representatives,   were   the   employees   of the appellant­Municipality.  One of the respondents was   appointed   in   the   year   1990   whereas   others were appointed in 1996 and 1998.

5) On  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 pensionery benefits.

6) The 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 the appellant.

8) The 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 of   mandamus   against   the   appellant­Municipality directing   payment of pension to all the petitioners therein (respondents herein) from the date of their retirement.

2.   After   the   appointment,   the   employee concerned   continued   in   service   until   he reached to the age of superannuation, so far as   LPA   No.1066/15   is   concerned.     Whereas, in the rest of the Letters Patent Appeals, the services of the employees concerned came to an end on account of death of the employees.

23) The 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 0 went   on   to   deduct   regular   contribution   from   their salary till the date of their retirement.

26) Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant (Municipality),   however,   placed   reliance   on   one State   Government’s   Circular   dated   28.11.1994 (Annexure   P­1)   and   contended   that   in   the  light  of this   circular,   the   respondents   are   neither   eligible and nor entitled to claim the benefit of pension. We find no merit in this submission.

28) Its perusal shows that it applies to the cases of Panchayat   employees,   who   later   became   the Municipal employees.

29) In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in these appeals. The appeals thus fail and are accordingly dismissed.

30) The   appellant   (Municipality)   is   directed   to finalize the pension cases of the respondents herein and   release   the   amount   of   pension   after   proper verification within four months from the date of this order.

September 20, 2018  1 3