16030 of 2018]
VINOD KANJIBHAI BHAGORA…APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
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 ”). 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. 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.
The main thrust of her argument(s) before this Court is that that the Appellant was not entitled to seek the benefit of Rule 25(ix) of the Pension Rules on account of the Appellants’ appointment in SLP(C) No 16030 of 2018 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.
Qualifying Service :
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/modifying-sentence-for-delayed-trial-a-legal-analysis/
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 SLP(C) No 16030 of 2018 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.
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. 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 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.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/modification-of-sentence-imposed-in-criminal-case/
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.
(VIKRAM NATH)……………………………………J.
Case Title: VINOD KANJIBHAI BHAGORA Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT (2024 INSC 100)
Case Number: C.A. No.-001571-001571 / 2024
