CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 12 GUJ CK 0113

Kantibhai Chaturbhai Patel vs Director and 3

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 26 December 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Paresh Upadhyay, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Special Civil Application No. 7632 of 1999

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 335 words

Honourable Mr. Justice Paresh Upadhyay

1.

Heard Ms. Bhavsar, learned advocate, for Mr. Bharat Jani, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Jyoti Mehta, learned A.G.P. The petitioner had opted for voluntary retirement. The actual date of retirement of the petitioner is 31st December 1993. As per Rules, petitioner was entitled to notional increase of period not exceeding 5 years, which would take notional date of retirement of the petitioner beyond 1st January 1996. The petitioner claims benefit of two increments for the period which would be his notional service beyond 1st January, 1996.

2.

Learned A.G.P. Ms. Mehta has by referring to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent authorities, and by further referring the clarificatory Government Resolution dated 9.6.1999 has contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit which is claimed in the petition.

3.

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the record I find that the actual date of retirement of the petitioner is 31.12.1993. Be it noted that, as per the Revision of Pay Rules of 1998, the general revision of pay was effected from 1.1.1996 and employees who were in service as on 1.1.1996, were entitled to revision of pay. I Therefore, the revision of pay w.e.f. 1st January 1996 or any benefit flowing therefrom can not be given to the petitioner. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the revision of pension effective from 1.1.1996 is already given to the petitioner but what is claim by the petitioner is increase in his pay, by two notional increments, for the notional period which falls beyond cut off date of 1.1.1996. I see no substance in the claim of the petitioner and the contest put forward on behalf of the Government is perfectly justified and is also in consonance with the Government Resolution referred to by the learned A.G.P. For the reasons recorded above this petition deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.