VINOD KANJIBHAI BHAGORA versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 155, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Unknown
Segment: Issues
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 155 : 2024 INSC 100
Vinod Kanjibhai Bhagora 
v. 
State of Gujarat & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 1571 of 2024)
02 February 2024
[Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the Appellant’s subsequent employment with the State 
Government could be construed to mean that the Appellant had 
been ‘absorbed’ by the State Government, such that the Appellants’ 
prior service with the Central Government would be considered as 
a part of ‘qualifying service’ in terms of Rule 25(ix) of the Gujarat 
Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2022.
Headnotes
Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2022 – r.25(ix) – 
Interpretation – Qualifying Service – Inclusion of the period 
of service rendered to the Central Government as a part of 
‘qualifying service’ under the State Government’s Pension Rules:
Held: Pension schemes floated by the State Government form a 
part of delegated beneficial legislation; and ought to be interpreted 
widely subject to such interpretation not running contrary to the 
express provisions of the Pension Rules – State Government is 
a model employer; and ought to uphold principles of fairness and 
clarity –The interpretation sought to be advanced is narrow and 
restrictive so as to limit the benefit of r.25(ix) only to such person(s) 
who may have explicitly been absorbed by the State Government 
as against persons such as the Appellant herein who had most 
certainly, implicitly been absorbed by the State Government i.e., 
the
Appellants’ participation in the selection process was prefaced 
by an NOC from the Central Government; and subsequently was 
followed by the tender of a technical resignation to the Central 
Government upon securing employment with the State Government 
– High Court erred in its interpretation of r.25(ix) and unfairly 
deprived the Appellant from seeking inclusion of the period of 
service rendered to the Central Government as a part of ‘qualifying 
service’ under the Pension Rules – Respondent No.1 to consider 
the service rendered by the Appellant to the Central Government 
in his capacity as Postal Assistant in the Gandhinagar Postal
156
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Division to be considered as qualifying service and re-calculate 
the terminal benefits/pensionary benefits – Impugned order set 
aside. [Paras 17-20, 22]
Service Law – Pension – Grant of – raison d’etre – Discussed. 
[Para 10]
Case Law Cited
LIC v. Shree Lal Meena, [2019] 5 SCR 391 : (2019) 4 
SCC 479 – referred to.
List of Acts
Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2022; Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Pension; Subsequent employment; Absorbed; Prior service; 
Qualifying service; Technical resignation; Terminal benefits/
pensionary benefits.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1571 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.03.2018 of the High Court 
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in SCA No.22341 of 2017
Appearances for Parties
Rishabh Parikh, E. C. Agrawala, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Devyani 
Bhatt, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Ms. Archana Pathak 
Dave, Ms. Suhasini Sen, S S Rebello, Shyam Gopal, Raghav 
Sharma, Sughosh Subramanyam, Ms. Rekha Pandey, Advs. for the 
Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1.	
Leave granted.  The decision of the High Court of Gujarat (the “High 
Court”) in Special Civil Application No. 22341 of 2017 whereunder, 
the High Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 
of the Constitution of India, is assailed before us (the “Impugned 
Order”).
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 
157
Vinod Kanjibhai Bhagora v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
2.	
The Appellant was engaged by the Central Government as a Postal 
Assistant in the Gandhinagar Postal Division on 12.08.1983 and 
thereafter continued to serve in the aforesaid role up until 16.07.1993.
3.	
In the interregnum, an invitation for application(s) for recruitment to 
the post of Senior Assistant in the Ministry of Health and Medical 
Services, Government of Gujarat (the “State Government”) came to 
be issued. Accordingly, the Appellant herein obtained a No-Objection 
Certificate (“NoC”) dated 18.06.1993 from the Superintendent of 
Post Office, Gandhinagar Division and thereafter participated in the 
aforesaid selection process.
4.	
On 16.07.1993, the Appellant having been selected as Senior 
Assistant in the State Government, tendered a technical resignation 
in qua his employment as a Postal Assistant in the Gandhinagar 
Postal Division. 
5.	
On 18.08.1993, the Appellant joined as a Senior Assistant in the 
State Government; and thereafter went on to serve the State 
Government for a period extending to 23 (twenty-three) years up 
until his superannuation (the “Subject Period”). Thereafter, the State 
Government only paid the Appellant terminal benefits/pensionary 
benefits to the extent of the Subject Period (the “Impugned Action”). 
6.	
Aggrieved by Impugned Action of the State Government, the Appellant 
made a representation before the Chief Postmaster General, Gujarat 
Circle
seeking the inclusion of the period of his service with the 
Central Government i.e., as a Postal Assistant in the Gandhinagar 
Postal Division between ‘1983 and ‘1993 to be considered in the 
grant of terminal benefits / pensionary benefits as per Rule 25 of 
the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2022 (the “Pension 
Rules”). However, vide an order dated 30.06.2014, the aforesaid 
representation came to be rejected on the sole ground that the 
Appellant had tendered an unconditional resignation.
7.	
In the aforesaid circumstances, the Appellant was constrained to 
prefer a writ petition before the High Court. Vide the Impugned Order, 
the High Court dismissed the aforesaid writ petition and observed inter 
alia that the Appellants’ case would not attract the benefit envisaged 
under Rule 25 of the Pension Rules. The operative paragraph(s) of 
the decision of the High Court are reproduced hereunder:
158
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
“6. The petitioner has claimed the pensionary benefits from 
the State Government for the period he worked as Central 
Government for the year 1983 to 1993. Reliance is placed 
upon Rule 25 of the above Rules. However, considering 
Rule 25 of the above Rules, we are of the opinion that the 
same shall not be applicable to the facts and circumstances 
of the case on the hand. Rule 25 of the said Rules is 
with respect to the qualifying service. The employee who 
has rendered his service with the Central Government is 
thereafter absorbed in the State Government. Thereafter, it 
was found that he has not completed the qualifying service 
while working with the State Government. In that case for 
the purpose of qualifying service, the service rendered by 
him as a Central Government employee is required to be 
counted and that too for the purpose of qualifying service. 
7. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, 
Rule 25 of the above Rules would not be applicable. 
8. Under the circumstances, as observed hereinabove, the 
petitioner has been paid the pension/pensionary/terminal 
benefits of the State Government where he last worked, 
considering the service rendered by him with the State 
Government.”
8.	
Mr. Rishabh Parikh, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the 
Appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to Rule 25(ix) of the 
Pension Rules. In the aforesaid context, he has submitted that the 
Appellant has
served as Postal Assistant in the Gandhinagar Postal 
Division between ‘1983 and ‘1993 i.e., service under the Central 
Government having a pension scheme, and thereafter served the 
State Government for the Subject Period. Accordingly, it was his 
principal contention that the Appellant was absorbed by the State 
Government and consequently, in terms of Rule 25(ix) of the Pension 
Rules, the Appellants’ terminal benefits / pensionary benefits could 
not be limited to merely the Subject Period but must also include 10 
(ten) years of service rendered by him to the Central Government. 
9.	
On the other hand, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR appearing on behalf of 
Respondent No. 1 i.e., the State of Gujarat has vehemently opposed 
the aforesaid submission(s). The main thrust of her argument(s) 
before this Court is that that the Appellant was not entitled to seek
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 
159
Vinod Kanjibhai Bhagora v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
the benefit of Rule 25(ix) of the Pension Rules on account of the 
Appellants’ appointment in the State Government emanating from 
a fresh recruitment i.e., pursuant to an invitation for application(s) 
to the post of Senior Assistant in the Ministry of Health and Medical 
Services issued by the State Government.
10.	 As a precursor, it would be relevant to consider the raison d’etre 
qua the grant of pension. Similarly, it would be equally important 
to clarify that pension is earned by a government servant in lieu of 
tireless service rendered by him / her (as the case may be) during the 
course of their employment; and often is an important consideration 
for person(s) seeking government employment.  Accordingly, in our 
considered opinion, the raison d’etre qua the grant of pension by 
the State Government would inextricably be linked to a concentrated 
effort by the State Government to enable its former employee(s) to 
tide over the vagaries and vicissitudes associated with old age vide 
a pension scheme.
11.	 In this context, we must now examine Rule 25(ix) of the Pension 
Rules. For ease of reference the same is reproduced as under:
“Rule 25. Qualifying Service : Subject to the provisions of 
these rules, qualifying service of a Government employee, 
means and includes - 
xxx

xxx
xxx
(ix) services rendered under Central Government/
Central Government Autonomous bodies having pension 
scheme, by a Government employee who is absorbed in 
Government”
12.	 The fulcrum of the dispute before this Court pertains to whether the 
Appellants’ subsequent employment with the State Government could 
be construed to mean that the Appellant had been ‘absorbed’ by the 
State Government, such that the Appellants’ prior service with the 
Central Government would be considered as a part of ‘qualifying 
service’ in terms of Rule 25(ix) of the Pension Rules. 
13.	 Admittedly, the Appellant served the Central Government as a 
Postal Assistant in the Gandhinagar Postal Division between ‘1983 
– ‘1993 i.e., for a period spanning close to a decade. Subsequently, 
pursuant to an invitation of application(s) for recruitment to the post
160
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
of Senior Assistant in the Ministry of Health and Medical Services, 
Government of Gujarat, the Appellant herein after obtaining an NOC 
from the Central Government, applied for and subsequently came 
to be appointed to the aforesaid post. Thereafter, the Appellant 
volunteered a technical resignation in order to be able to serve the 
State Government. 
14.	 On a perusal of Rule 25(ix) of the Pension Rules we note that, 
qualifying service for the purpose of calculating terminal benefits / 
pensionary benefits  under the Pension Rules would include prior 
services rendered by such an person under inter alia the Central 
Government provided that (i) the employment of such person under the 
Central Government encompassed an underlying pension scheme; 
and (ii) such person came to be absorbed by the State Government. 
15.	 In the present case, it is an admitted and undisputed fact that the 
prior employment of the Appellant under the Central Government 
contemplated an underlying pension and thus, the dispute before 
us is only limited to whether the Appellant came to be ‘absorbed’ 
by the State Government. 
16.	 Respondent No. 1’s stance is premised on the fact that that the 
Appellant joined the services of the State Government pursuant to a 
fresh recruitment i.e., pursuant to an invitation for applications issued 
by the State Government; and, merely because the Appellant was a 
Central Government employee in his previous
avatar, he could not 
be considered to have been absorbed by the State Government.
17.	 It is well settled that pension scheme(s) floated by the State 
Government form a part of delegated beneficial legislation; and ought 
to be interpreted widely subject to such interpretation not running 
contrary to the express provisions of the Pension Rules1. Furthermore, 
it would be relevant to underscore that the State Government is a 
model employer; and ought to uphold principles of fairness and clarity.
18.	 In the aforesaid context, we have carefully considered the Pension 
Rules, and we find that the interpretation sought to be advanced by 
Ms. Ghildiyal is narrow and restrictive so as to limit the benefit of Rule 
25(ix) of the Pension Rules only to such person(s) who may have 
explicitly been absorbed by the State Government as against persons 
1	
Senior Divisional Manager, LIC v. Shree Lal Meena, [2019] 5 SCR 391 : (2019) 4 SCC 479
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 
161
Vinod Kanjibhai Bhagora v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
such as the Appellant herein who has most certainly, implicitly been 
absorbed by the State Government i.e., the Appellants’ participation 
in the selection process was prefaced by an NOC from the Central 
Government; and subsequently was followed by the tender of a 
technical resignation to the Central Government upon securing 
employment with the State Government. Pertinently, neither can 
the aforementioned interpretation sought to be advance on behalf 
of Respondent No. 1 be said to be echoed by any express provision 
of the Pension Rules nor has any convincing rationale to adopt such 
an interpretation, been placed before us.
19.	 We thus find that the High Court erred in its interpretation of Rule 
25(ix) of the Pension Rules; and consequently, unfairly deprived the 
Appellant from seeking inclusion of the period of service rendered 
to the Central Government as a part of ‘qualifying service’ under 
the Pension Rules.
20.	 Accordingly, we direct Respondent No. 1 to consider the service 
rendered by the Appellant to the Central Government in his 
capacity as Postal Assistant in the Gandhinagar Postal Division to 
be considered as qualifying service; and thereafter (i) re-calculate 
the terminal benefits / pensionary benefits accruing in favour of 
the Appellant; and (ii) transmit the arrears (if any) of such terminal 
benefits / pensionary benefits to the Appellant within 6 (six) weeks 
from today
i.e., 02.02.2024. 
21.	 Upon making the aforementioned payment, Respondent No. 1 shall be 
free to seek pro-rata re-imbursement / contribution from Respondent 
No. 2 in respect of terminal benefits / pensionary benefits paid by 
Respondent No. 1 for the period pertaining to service rendered by 
the Appellant for the Central Government.
22.	 The Impugned Order is set aside; and the appeal stands allowed in 
the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed 
of. No order as to costs.
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Result of the case: 
Appeal allowed.