Case Title: VINOD KANJIBHAI BHAGORA vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT., Diary No.- 23474 – 2018
Citation : (SC) 108
Summary
The Supreme Court has ruled that a government servant receives a pension in lieu of their devoted service when awarding a pension to a government employee under the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2022. The appellant, a former employee of the federal government, worked for the Gujarati government’s Ministry of Health and Medical Services and was selected for the Senior Assistant position. The State government compensated the appellant exclusively for his work as a Senior Assistant, leading to a disagreement. The Supreme Court ruled that the appellant would be eligible for the pension benefits if the employment had an underlying pension scheme and the State Government absorbed him. The Court concluded that the State Government implicitly absorbed the appellant, and the High Court erred in interpreting Rule 25(ix) of the Pension Rules, unfairly depriving the appellant of their right to have their time spent working for the Central Government included in their “qualifying service.” The Court ordered the State to recalculate pension benefits and pay any arrears in line with the new figures.
About the case
The Supreme Court has noted that a government servant receives a pension in lieu of their devoted service when awarding a pension to a government employee under the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2022. Furthermore, for the person or people looking for government work, pensions are frequently a major factor.
The appellant in this case worked for the government. He began his career in the Gandhinagar Postal Division as a postal assistant for the federal government. His selection for the Senior Assistant position in the Gujarati government’s Ministry of Health and Medical Services occurred during his job. Importantly, in order to take part in the selection process, the appellant had also secured a No-Objection Certificate. Thus, the Appellant quit to take the latter position after working as a postal assistant for around ten years.
Additionally, the appellant worked as a senior assistant for 23 years starting on August 18, 1993.When the State government compensated the Appellant exclusively for his work as a Senior Assistant—rather than as a Postal Assistant—the disagreement started. The High Court dismissed the challenge to this suit. Hence, the current appeal. It is crucial to note Rule 25(ix) of the aforementioned Pension Rules before proceeding. It states that “services rendered under Central Government/Central Government Autonomous bodies having pension scheme by a Government employee who is absorbed in Government” qualifies as service performed by a government employee.
The appellant contended that after working for the federal government, he was absorbed by the state government. He must therefore receive pension benefits in accordance with the aforementioned rule. Contrarily, the Respondent State argued that the Appellant had no right to pursue the Pension Rules’ benefits. The Appellant, a former employee of the central government, would be eligible for the benefit if (i) the employment had an underlying pension scheme and (ii) the State Government absorbed him, the Court remarked after reviewing the relevant provision.
Taking this as a clue, the Court noted that there was no doubt about the pension plan at the Appellant’s previous job. The Court noted that the interpretation of the pension scheme should not be restricted and restrictive when addressing the question of whether the State Government absorbed the Appellant. It is well-established that the pension plan or plans offered by the State Government are a component of advantageous legislation that has been delegated, and as such, they should be interpreted broadly as long as it doesn’t conflict with the Pension Rules’ explicit provisions.
Moreover, it would be pertinent to emphasize that the State Government should maintain the values of justice and clarity and is a model employer, the Court stated. The Court came to the conclusion that the State Government had implicitly absorbed the Appellant in light of these observations. The Appellant receiving the NOC prior to the selection process served as the foundation for the Court’s decision. Following his selection, he resigned and took a position with the State administration. In light of this, the Court held that the High Court erred in interpreting Rule 25(ix) of the Pension Rules, unfairly depriving the Appellant of their right to have the time they spent working for the Central Government included in their “qualifying service” as defined by the Pension Rules. As a result, the Court ordered the State to recalculate pension benefits and pay any arrears in line with the new figures.
