Service Law – Pension/Pensionary Benefits – Claim for – Denial of – When not proper – Respondents-employees of appellantMunicipality denied pension/pensionary benefits – Challenged by respondents – Allowed by High Court – Held: High Court was right in holding that the question involved in the present appeals is covered by the earlier decision of the High Court rendered in Mohamed Irshad Husenbhai case, which was upheld by Supreme Court and has thus attained finality – Plea of appellant that there is distinction between the two groups of employees, namely, one coming from the Panchayat and then becoming the Municipal employees and the other directly becoming the Municipal employees and that in Mohamed Irshad Husenbhai case, the employees who fell in the former category were held entitled for the grant of pension which is not the situation in the present case – Such plea is of no significance because the appellant made the respondents members of the GPF contributions and deducted regular contribution from their salary till the date of their retirement – Thus, the distinction pointed out by the appellant for coming out of the clutches of the decision of Mohamed Irshad Husenbhai case was rightly found untenable by the High Court – No case to interfere in the impugned order.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court was right in holding that the question involved in these appeals is covered by the earlier decision of the Gujarat High Court rendered in Mohamed Irshad Husenbhai Baloch case, which was upheld by this Court by order dated 16.09.2013 and thus attained finality. [Para 19] [756-E]
1.2 Distinction between the two groups of employees, namely, one coming from the Panchayat and then becoming the Municipal employees and the other directly becoming the Municipal employees was held to be of no significance because the appellant made the respondents as the members of the GPF contributions and went on to deduct regular contribution from their salary till the date of their retirement. The aforementioned distinction pointed out by the appellant for coming out of the clutches of the decision of Mohamed Irshad Husenbhai Baloch case was also rightly found untenable by the High Court by assigning the proper reasons. Keeping in view the undisputed facts arising in the case coupled with the decision rendered in the Mohamed Irshad Husenbhai Baloch, which has attained finality, and was then given effect to in relation to concerned Municipal employees holding them eligible and entitled to claim the pension and the pensionery benefits, no good ground is found to take any other view than the one taken by the writ court and the Division Bench in the impugned order. [Paras 23, 24, 25] [757-G-H; 758A-D]
1.3 The appellant is directed to finalize the pension cases of the respondents and release the amount of pension after proper verification within four months from the date of this order. [Para 30] [758-G]
Chief Officers v. Mohmad Irshad Husenbhai Baloch & Ors. (2011) (1) GCD 569 (Guj) (D.B.) – approved.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.