Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Rajkot Municipal Corpn & 1 ­

High Court Of Gujarat|15 June, 2012
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :­ “[A] declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the retiral benefits to the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and quashing and setting aside the same;
[B] directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.4,04,044/­ towards gratuity, leave encashment, commutation etc., with 18% interest from 31.01.1997 till its realization;
[C] directing the respondents to pay the arrears of monthly pension at the rate of Rs.3461/­ from 01.02.1997 till its realization and further directing the respondents to continue to pay a sum of Rs.3461/­ p.m. to the petitioner;
[D] directing the respondents to pay any other retiral benefits which are due to the petitioner;
[E] , [F] ........
[G] Declaring the impugned Resolution of the Standing Committee dated 22.01.2010 as violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution and illegal null and void and quashing the same.
[H] Restraining the respondent to execute implement or take any action in pursuance of the impugned Resolution dated 22.01.2010.”
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner herein was serving as a Deputy Health Officer in the respondent – Corporation. The petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 17.12.1979 on the ground of allegedly misappropriating the funds of respondent Corporation. Thereafter, the respondent Corporation preferred an application u/s. 33(2) of the I.D. Act, being [IT] Reference No. 164/1979, for approval of the dismissal order. However, the same was rejected vide order dated 14.04.1982. Against the said order, the respondent Corporation preferred Special Civil Application No. 1711/1983 before this Court, which came to be rejected vide order dated 29.04.1995.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the dismissal of Reference [IT] No. 164/1979, he was not reinstated in service and the respondent Corporation proceeded with further inquiry. Therefore, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 3058/1983 before this Court praying for reinstatement. In the year 1994, the respondent Corporation dismissed the petitioner from service on completion of the inquiry.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred another petition being Special Civil Application No. 1218/1984 before this Court. The petitioner thereafter, made several representations to the respondent Corporation requesting to reinstate him in service. However, the Standing Committee of the respondent Corporation passed a Resolution dated 29.08.1996 whereby it was decided to reinstate the wherein the petitioner in service with 50% of wages, and other benefits vide order dated 31.08.1996. On 16.12.1996, the respondent no. 2 informed the petitioner that he shall retire from the service w.e.f. 31.01.1997 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is the case of the petitioner that though he had retired on 31.01.1997 and the respondent Corporation had also passed an order fixing the pension and other retiral benefits, the same are not paid to the petitioner so far. Hence, this petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It appears from the record that the petitioner was appointed in service on 20.08.1976 and was dismissed from service on 17.10.1979. He retired from the service on 31.01.1997 on attaining the age of superannuation, Thus, there was a break in service for about 17 years between 18.10.1979 to 30.08.1996. Therefore, effectively, the total continuous service rendered by the petitioner is 3 years and 9 months only. As per the relevant Rules, the petitioner is not entitled for pension and other retirement benefits since he has no put in the actual years of service.
6. Considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the respondent Corporation was completely justified in not granting pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, devoid of any merits and is accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief if any, stands vacated.
[K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Rajkot Municipal Corpn & 1 ­

Court

High Court Of Gujarat

JudgmentDate
15 June, 2012
Judges
  • Ks Jhaveri