Pension Scheme Limited To Employees Serving On Cut‑Off Date, Court Holds

A Single‑Judge bench of Honourable Mr. Justice Maulik J. Shelat of the Gujarat High Court heard a petition under Article 226 challenging the Municipal Corporation of Morbi’s refusal to grant pension and family pension to the widow of a retired municipal employee, who retired on 29/02/1995. The petition, filed in 2018 and pursued by the deceased employee’s children after the widow’s death, contested the respondent’s denial of pensionary benefits on the ground that the pension rules applied only to employees in service on 01/04/1995.

The court dismissed the petition, holding that the pension scheme adopted by the municipality applied only to “full time and permanent employees on the above mentioned date” (01/04/1995) and therefore did not cover employees who had retired prior to that date. The Court found no illegality in the Municipal Corporation’s order dated 09/10/2003 rejecting the claim, and recorded delay and laches in approaching the Court. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “3) These rules come in to force from 1- 4-1995: The full time and permanent employees on the above mentioned date shall have to give option in writing within 3 (Three) Months after the sanction of these rules by the Director of Municipalities. The employees who have joined the Provident Fund Scheme of the Municipality can join Pension Fund Scheme from retrospective date of their joining the Pension Scheme.

Once the option is offered it shall be treated as final and binding.” The Court also noted, “I do not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the respondent in rejecting the claim of the husband of the petitioner when it passed the order dated 09/10/2003.”

Background

The husband of the original petitioner served as a permanent employee of the Municipal Corporation of Morbi and retired on 29/02/1995. The municipality framed a pension scheme effective 01/04/1995 and published public notices on 26/02/1999 and 03/04/1999 inviting employees to submit option forms to join the pension scheme. The retired employee submitted an option form on 23/03/1999, but the Corporation subsequently published a list on 09/10/2003 excluding him on the ground that he had retired prior to 01/04/1995. The employee died on 04/01/2006; the widow filed the present petition in 2018 seeking pension arrears and family pension, and died during pendency. Her children continued the petition.

The petitioner relied on the public notices and a footnote indicating that the Establishment Department would intimate retired employees, arguing that retirees prior to 01/04/1995 were covered and that the Corporation’s later denial was perverse. The respondent countered that Rule 3 of the Pension Rules limited coverage to those in service on 01/04/1995, that no pension papers were legitimately prepared, and that the petition was barred by delay and laches. The Court examined Rule 3 and the notices, concluding that the scheme expressly applied to “full time and permanent employees” serving as on 01/04/1995 and that the notices only addressed employees engaged prior to that date who remained eligible between 1995 and 1999—not those who had already retired before 01/04/1995.

The Court further treated Annexure‑C (the purported pension papers) with suspicion, observing that the copy on record was typed and the original was not produced, and that there was no specific denial of certain averments in the rejoinder. The Court recorded the lengthy delay (the employee died in 2006 and the petition was filed in 2018) and the absence of evidence that the petitioner had pursued administrative remedies before approaching the High Court. On these bases, the Court found no ground to grant discretionary relief and dismissed the petition, discharging the Rule and awarding no costs. No precedent was expressly followed, distinguished or overruled in the judgment.

Case Details: Case No.: C/SCA/10012/2018 NeutralCitation: 2026:GUJHC:18220 Case Title: Hirbai Wd/o Late Kasambhai Ismailbhai Sameja & Anr. Versus Municipal Corporation of Morbi Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Deceased litigant through legal heirs/representatives; Mr. Anand B. Gogia (Advocate); Mr. B. B. Gogia (Advocate); Ms. Kajal L. Kalwani (Advocate) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Haribhai Patel for Mr. Deepak P. Sanchela (Advocate)

(Maulik J. Shelat, J.)