1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “A) Quashing and setting aside the letter dt. 26.4.2011 and directing the Respondent to treat the period from 19.11.1981 to 21.7.1982 as continuous for the purpose of seniority.
B) Directing the Respondent to join the period of service from 4.7.1975 to 2.4.1979 of the petitioner with the subsequent period for the purpose of pay, pension and leave, and to revise his pensionary benefits on that basis.
C) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition the respondent may be directed to revise the pension of the petitioner by including the period from 4.7.1975 to 2.4.1979 as pensionable.
D) To grant such and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper.”
2. The facts as can be carved out from the record of the petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Lecturer (Civil) on 4.7.1975. The petitioner sent his resignation from service by letter dated 5.6.1981 to the competent authority – District Development Officer, Godhra requesting him to retire from 4.7.1981. It further transpires that in view of the resignation by the competent authority, the District Development Officer relieved the petitioner on 19.11.1981. However, the resignation of the petitioner was not accepted. The petitioner thereafter filed an application before the State Government to allow him to withdraw his resignation. The State Government by an order dated 22.6.1982 by accepting the undertaking from the petitioner that his appointment would be treated as fresh and he would not get any benefits of his past service, allowed him to join the duties. The petitioner, on the basis of the said order dated 22.6.1982, joined the service and worked till the date of his superannuation i.e. 30.6.2011.
3. It further transpires from the record of the petition that the petitioner had filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.7143 of 2009 before this Court and had prayed for the following reliefs: “A) Directing the respondents to treat petitioner's date of appointment as 22.01.1979 for all purposes including his retiral benefits ignoring his resignation dated 05.06.1981.
B) If the above prayer is not granted then directing the respondents to count his date of appointment as 22.01.1979 for the purpose of pay, pension and leave benefits.”
4. The said petition was withdrawn by the petitioner with a liberty to file a representation to the appropriate authority more particularly with a request to count the date of appointment as 22.1.1979 for the purpose of pay, pension and leave benefits and it is further the case of the petitioner that after the direction was issued by this Court, the representation filed by the petitioner was not decided by the authority and therefore, petitioner again filed Special Civil Application No.2396 of 2011 praying for a direction directing the State Government to decide the representation filed by the petitioner dated 8.2.2010 regarding his seniority and with a further prayer to treat the service from 19.11.1981 for the purpose of seniority. The said writ petition was also disposed of by this Court vide order dated 28.2.2011 directing the authorities to decide the representation.
5. The State Government by a common order dated 26.4.2011 rejected both the representations filed by the petitioner. The said order dated 26.4.2011 is impugned in the present petition.
6. Heard Mr. I.S. Supehia, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh R. Patel, learned AGP for the respondent on advance copy.
7. Mr. I.S. Supehia, learned advocate for the petitioner has taken this Court through the order impugned in the petition dated 26.4.2011. It is submitted that the District Development Officer already acted upon the resignation given by the petitioner and the District Development Officer being the competent authority, the said decision ought to have been accepted by the State Government. Mr. Supehia mainly pointed out that the resignation of the petitioner was not accepted and hence, he is entitled to all the benefits of being in service. Mr. Supehia pointed out that in fact the State Government should have considered the case of the petitioner at least with regard to seniority and should have considered the petitioner to be in service for the above period.
No further contentions are raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner.
8. Considering the reasons given in the order impugned dated 26.4.2011 and on perusing the order dated 22.6.1982, whereby the petitioner was taken back in service clearly stipulates that the undertaking is to be filed by the petitioner. Mr. Supehia candidly submitted that as per the conditions laid down in the said order dated 22.6.1982, the petitioner has given an undertaking to the State Government and on the basis of the same, the petitioner was taken back in service. It is also worthwhile to note that the said order dated 22.6.1982 is never challenged by the petitioner all throughout his service and only on the eve of retirement, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing earlier two petitions. On perusing the reasons given by the authority in the order dated 26.4.2011, it cannot be inferred that the authority has committed any error in deciding the representations. On the contrary, the Government has, after taking into consideration the rules applicable, given benefit of continuous service by joining the period from 19.11.1981 to 21.7.1982 for the purpose of retiral benefits etc.
9. In view of the above, the order dated 26.4.2011 impugned in the present petition cannot be faulted on any ground much less the grounds raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner. The petition, therefore, is misconceived and the same fails and it stands rejected in limine with no order as to cost.
[R.M.CHHAYA, J.] mrpandya