Vinod Kanjibhai Bhagora v. State of Gujrat & Another

SLP 16030/218

Before Supreme Court of India

Order:  

Appeal was allowed on 02.02.2024 by the bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath J & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma J.

Apex Court set aside the order of the High Court  & directed State to consider the service rendered by the Appellant to the Central Government in his capacity as Postal Assistant to be considered as qualifying service.

Fact:

Appellant was engaged as postal assistant on 12.08.83 at Gandhinagar Postal Division of the Central Government & he served in the aforesaid role till 16.07.1993.

Later an invitation by the Ste Government of Gujrat was issued for the post of Senior Assistant.

Appellant after obtaining NOC from the Superintendent of Post Office Gandhinagar Division on 18.06.93 and participated in the selection process.

He was selected and he joined as Sr. Assistant on 18.08.93 and served for a period of 23 years.

State Government paid terminal benefit only for the period appellant was on their role as Sr Assistant.

Terminal benefit for the period of 10 years which he served with Central Government was not included.

Aggrieved with the non - inclusion of terminal benefit which he served with Central Government, appellant moved Representation before Chief Post Master General, Gujrat Division Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2022.

The representation was rejected.

Against the rejection of his representation, appellant filed Writ Petition before Gujrat High Court.

The Writ Petition was rejected by the High Court observing Rule 25 doesn’t apply on the appellant.

Submission of the Counsel of the Appellant

The Appellant was absorbed by the State Government and consequently, in terms of Rule 25(ix) of the Pension Rules, the Appellants’ terminal benefits could not be limited to the Period of 23 years only but must also include 10 years of service which Appellant had rendered to the Central Government.

Submission of the Counsel of the Respondent State

Appellant was not entitled to seek the benefit of Rule 25(ix) of the Pension Rules as the Appellant was appointed in the State Government emanating from a fresh recruitment.

Observation of the Supreme Court

Qualifying service for the purpose of calculating terminal benefits would include prior services rendered by such a 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.

The prior employment of the Appellant under the Central Government provides for pension scheme.

Argument of the State is petitioner joined State Government as fresh appointee and his previous employment with Central Government could not be considered to have been absorbed by the State Government.

Interpretation by the State Counsel is narrow and restrictive so as to limit the benefit of Rule 25(ix). Benefit extended to such person(s) who have been explicitly absorbed by the State Government.

Pension scheme(s) floated by the State Government form a part of delegated beneficial legislation and ought to be interpreted widely.

The Appellants’ participation in the selection process was preceded 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 interpreting of Rule 25(ix) of the Pension Rules.