Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4772/2004 2/ 2 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4772 of 2004
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
=================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=================================================
BHIMRAO
A DHARUNDHAR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA & 1 - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MR PH PATHAK for Petitioner(s)
: 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR PC MASTER for
Respondent(s) : 2,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 22/06/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. We
have heard Mr P H Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr P
C Master, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. This petition has
been filed challenging the order dated 8.3.2004 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in OA No.223 of
2003.
2. The
facts in brief are that the petitioner was engaged as casual
labourer in the year 1970. He was made permanent on 24.3.1979 by
following regular selection procedure. The petitioner retired after
attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.2000. Therefore, the
petitioner he worked with the respondents since 1970 upto 2000.
While considering the payment of retiral dues, the petitioner was
informed that his services were to be counted from 1979 only. The
petitioner filed OA No.223 of 2003 before the Tribunal. The question
raised before the Tribunal was whether the period during which the
petitioner was working as casual labourer is to be counted in his
service for pensionary purposes. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon certain decisions of the Apex Court which have been
considered by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has held that the
petitioner being a casual labourer, is not entitled to get continuity
of service from 1970 and the period from 1970 to 23.3.1979 has not
been counted towards qualifying service for the purposes of pension.
The Tribunal in para 7 of its order has found that a clear
distinction between a quasi permanent appointment which is made
against a post and a casual labourer who is engaged not against a
post but due to exigencies of work.
3. For
the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned
order passed by the Tribunal. This petition fails and is accordingly
dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[V
M SAHAI, J.]
[G
B SHAH, J.]
msp
Top