Jahanvi Agarwal
In a recent case before the Supreme Court, it was argued that pension schemes introduced by the State Governments should be broadly interpreted as delegated beneficial legislation. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, addressed an appeal challenging a Gujarat High Court order. Here, the High Court had refused to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The case involved an Appellant who served as a Postal Assistant in the Gandhinagar Postal Division under the Central Government from 12.08.1983 to 16.07.1993. Subsequently, the Appellant applied to join as a Senior Assistant in the Ministry of Health and Medical Services, Government of Gujarat. He obtained a No-Objection Certificate (NoC) for the same. After resigning from the Postal Assistant role, he served the State Government for 23 years until his retirement.
However, the State Government only considered the service period with them for terminal benefits, excluding the earlier Central Government service. Despite the Appellant’s representations, the request to include the Central Government service period in the terminal benefits calculation was rejected based on the submission of an unconditional resignation.
The Appellant then filed a writ petition before the High Court, seeking inclusion of the Central Government service period under Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2022. However, the High Court dismissed the petition, stating it did not meet the criteria outlined in Rule 25.
The key issue before the bench was whether the Appellant’s subsequent employment with the State Government implied absorption, making the Central Government service period count as ‘qualifying service’ under Rule 25(ix) of the Pension Rules.
The bench noted arguments from Respondent No. 1 i.e., The State of Gujarat, asserting that the Appellant’s entry into State Government services was through a fresh recruitment process, independent of previous government service.
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a wide interpretation of pension schemes introduced by State Governments, as they form part of beneficial legislation. The bench also stressed the State Government’s responsibility as a model employer to uphold fairness and clarity.
The Court found the interpretation presented by Respondent No. 1 to be narrow and restrictive, aiming to limit the applicability of Rule 25(ix) of the Pension Rules. It directed Respondent No. 1 to consider the Appellant’s service with the Central Government as a qualifying service and to recalculate the terminal benefits accordingly.
Ultimately, the bench allowed the appeal in favor of the Appellant, highlighting the importance of a comprehensive interpretation of pension schemes to ensure justice and fairness for employees.
Case Name: Vinod Kanjibhai Bhagora v. The State Of Gujarat
Dairy Number: 23474/2018
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma