REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.5529 OF 2016

UNA NAGAR PALIKA       ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

KALIBEN BALUBHAI  MAKWANA & ANR.                …Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL No.5530/2016 CIVIL APPEAL No.5531/2016  CIVIL APPEAL No.5532/2016  CIVIL APPEAL No.6490/2016  

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) These appeals are directed against the

common final judgment and order dated 06.10.2015

passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad

in Letters Patent Appeal No.1122 of 2015 in Special

1

Civil Application No.3699 of 2014 with Letters

Patent Appeal No.1065 of 2015 in Special Civil

Application No.30402 of  2007 with  Letters  Patent

Appeal No.1066 of 2015 in Special Civil Application

No.4757 of 2012 with Letters Patent Appeal

No.1067 of 2015 in Special Civil Application

No.6137 of 2012 and Letters Patent Appeal No.1124

of 2015 in Special Civil Application  No.11100 of

2014 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court

disposed of the Letters Patent Appeals filed by the

appellant herein on the basis of the judgment

rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court in

the matter of  Chief Officers  vs.  Mohmad Irshad

Husenbhai Baloch & Ors. (2011 (1) GCD 569 (Guj)

(D.B.).

2) In order to  appreciate the  issues  involved  in

these appeals, few relevant facts need mention infra.

3) The appellant herein was the respondent

whereas the five contesting respondents herein were

2

the petitioners in the special civil

applications(petitions) filed before the High Court.

4) The appellant is the “Municipality” also called

Nagar Palika for the place called “Una” in the State

of Gujarat. The five contesting respondents, out of

them four have expired and  now represented by

their legal representatives,  were the employees  of

the appellant­Municipality.  One of the respondents

was appointed in the year 1990  whereas others

were appointed in 1996 and 1998.  

5) On their attaining the age of superannuation

in the appellant’s services on different dates, all the

five respondents requested the  appellant to  settle

their claims for payment of pension and pensionery

benefits.

6) The appellant declined to grant any pensionery

benefits (pension) to all the five respondents stating

that they were neither eligible and nor entitled to

claim the pension or/and any pensionery benefits

from the appellant.  

3

7) This gave rise to filing of the special civil

applications (petitions) by the respondents against

the  appellant in the  High Court  of  Gujarat  being

S.C.A. No. 3699 of 2014 and four others.   The

appellant as respondent contested the petitions.  

8) The Single Judge of the High Court by passing

separate orders on different dates allowed the

petitions and held that the petitioners (respondents

herein) are eligible and thus entitled to claim

pension and pensionery benefits from the appellant

being their employees and accordingly issued a writ

of mandamus against the appellant­Municipality

directing payment of pension to all the petitioners

therein (respondents herein) from the date of their

retirement.

9) The appellant (Municipality) felt aggrieved and

filed intra court appeals before the Division Bench

in the High Court.  By common impugned order, the

Division Bench dismissed the appeals giving rise to

4

filing of these appeals by way of special leave in this

Court by the Una Nagar Palika(Municipality).

10) It is apposite to mention that the very

question, namely, whether an employee of a

Municipality is entitled to claim pension/pensionery

benefits from his employer­Municipality was the

subject matter of one litigation in Gujarat High

Court. The leading judgment  was passed by the

Division Bench in LPA No. 214/2011 entitled  Chief

Officer  vs.  Mohamed Irshad Husenbhai Baloch

and Others  (supra) along with other connected

matters on 31.01.2013.  

11) The  Division  Bench held that the  employees

are eligible and thus entitled to claim the

Pension/Pensionery benefits provided they render

qualifying  service  while in the  employment  of the

Municipality in terms of the Rules.   The concerned

Municipality felt aggrieved  by the said order and

filed special leave to appeal (SLP Nos.15691 to

5

15700 of 2003) in this Court. It was, however,

dismissed by this Court by order dated 16.09.2013.  

12) The  order  was  accordingly  given effect to  by

sanctioning the  pension to those employees,  who

were parties in the said litigation.

13) It is with this background, when the petitions

out of which these appeals arise came up for

hearing, the Single Judge (writ court) essentially

placed reliance on the decision of Chief Officer vs.

Mohamed Irshad Husenbhai Baloch and Others

(supra) and allowed the petitions finding no material

distinction in the case at hand and in the case of

Chief Officer  vs.  Mohamed Irshad Husenbhai

Baloch and Others (supra).

14) When the  matter came up in appeals, the

Division Bench also placed reliance on the view

taken in  Chief Officer  vs.  Mohamed Irshad

Husenbhai Baloch and Others  (supra) and

dismissed the appeals.  

6

15) The writ court and the Division Bench were of

the view that the issue in question  has  attained

finality by the decision rendered in the case of Chief

Officer  vs.  Mohamed Irshad Husenbhai Baloch

and Others  (supra)  and affirmed by the  order  of

this Court dated 16.09.2012.  

16) It is with this background facts, the question

arises for  consideration  in this  appeal is  whether

the view taken by the writ court and the Appellate

Court requires any interference.

17) Heard Mr. S.P. Hasurkar, learned counsel for

the  appellant  and Ms.  Anushree  Prashit  Kapadia,

learned counsel for the respondents.

18) Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

find no case to interfere in the impugned order.

19) In our considered opinion, the High Court was

right in holding that the question involved in these

appeals is covered  by the earlier decision of the

7

Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of  Chief

Officer  vs.  Mohamed Irshad Husenbhai Baloch

and Others (supra) which was upheld by this Court

by order dated 16.09.2013 and thus attained

finality.  

20) We find that in order to show that the decision

rendered in the case of Chief Officer vs. Mohamed

Irshad Husenbhai Baloch and Others (supra) has

no application to the facts of the case and that it

does not lay down the correct principle and be held

as  per curium, the appellant (Municipality)  made

attempts and contended before the Division Bench

that there lies a distinction between the employees,

who were originally working with the Panchayat and

later on convergence of Panchayat into the

Municipality became the employees of the

Municipality by virtue of its merger and the

employees, who were directly appointed by the

Municipality.  

8

21) It was contended that the employees, who fall

in former category of case, were held entitled for the

grant of pension but not those employees, who fall

in the latter category of the case. It was pointed out

that since the employees in the case of  Chief

Officer  vs.  Mohamed Irshad Husenbhai Baloch

and Others (supra) fell in the former category of the

case and, therefore, they were held entitled to claim

the benefit of  pension whereas the respondents of

this case fall in the latter category of cases, the

benefit of  decision  rendered in the  case  of  Chief

Officer  vs.  Mohamed Irshad Husenbhai Baloch

and  Others  (supra) could  not  be granted to the

respondents  because  they  were  appointed directly

by the appellant (Municipality).

22) The Division Bench while repelling the

aforementioned submission took note of the

following four undisputed facts arising in this case:

“1. The original petitioners­respondent No.1 herein in the respective appeals were

9

appointed by the municipality and they were in service of the municipality.

2. After the appointment, the employee concerned continued in service until he reached to the age of superannuation, so far as LPA No.1066/15 is concerned.   Whereas, in the rest of the Letters Patent Appeals, the services of the employees concerned came to an end on account of death of the employees.

3. It is an  undisputed position that the total length of service in respect of all cases has exceeded 10 years which is the minimum requirement for eligibility of pension.

4. In respect of all employees,  which is subject matter of the present group of appeals, they were member of GPF and GPF contributions were being deducted by the municipality from their salary from time to time until their services came to an end.”

23) The Division Bench was of the view and, in our

view, rightly that the distinction sought to be made

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 members of the GPF contributions and

1 0

went on to deduct regular contribution from their

salary till the date of their retirement.  

24) In our view, the case at hand is covered by the

earlier decision rendered in the case of  Chief

Officer  vs.  Mohamed Irshad Husenbhai Baloch

and Others  (supra)  which stands  upheld  by this

Court by order dated 16.09.2013. We are also of the

view that the aforementioned distinction pointed out

by the appellant for coming out of the clutches of

the decision of Chief Officer vs. Mohamed Irshad

Husenbhai  Baloch and Others  (supra)  was  also

rightly found untenable by the High Court by

assigning the proper reasons.

25) Keeping in view the aforementioned four

undisputed  facts arising  in  the case coupled with

the decision rendered in the case of  Chief Officer

vs.  Mohamed Irshad Husenbhai Baloch and

Others (supra), which has attained finality, and was

then given effect to in relation to concerned

1 1

Municipal employees holding them eligible and

entitled to claim the  pension  and the  pensionery

benefits, we find no good ground to take any other

view than the one taken by the writ court and the

Division Bench in the impugned order.

26) Learned counsel for the appellant

(Municipality), however, placed reliance on one

State Government’s Circular dated 28.11.1994

(Annexure P­1) and contended that  in the light of

this circular, the respondents are  neither eligible

and nor entitled to claim the benefit of pension. We

find no merit in this submission.  

27) Firstly, we find that it was not filed before the

High Court (writ  court/Division Bench);  Secondly,

the writ court and the Division Bench did not refer

it to;  Thirdly,  in any event, it is of no significance

to decide the present controversy.  

28) Its perusal shows that it applies to the cases of

Panchayat employees, who later became the

Municipal employees.  

1 2

29) In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find

no merit in these appeals. The appeals thus fail and

are accordingly dismissed.  

30) The appellant (Municipality) is directed to

finalize the pension cases of the respondents herein

and release the amount of pension after proper

verification within four months from the date of this

order.    

                         …...……..................................J.

        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

………...................................J.     [S. ABDUL NAZEER]

New Delhi; September 20, 2018  

1 3