Authority: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad

Order Date: 17/07/2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: appellant – Chief Officer, Dharampur Nagar Palika (Dharampur Municipality); respondents – State of Gujarat & others. The petitioners were four former employees: Deepakbhai Vinayakbhai Desai (appointed 16/03/1991), Bhayalbhai Jivanbhai Mahakal (appointed 01/03/1990), Rameshbhai Bhikhabhai Patel (appointed 01/01/1984) and Pradhyumangiri Vallabhgiri Goswami (appointed 01/08/1994 by the Municipality).
  • Nature of proceedings: Writ petitions seeking grant of pension benefits after superannuation; subsequent civil application for stay; appeal against a Single Judge’s order directing pension payment.
  • Background: The three older petitioners were originally Gram Panchayat employees absorbed into the Municipality upon its constitution and claimed pension. Goswami was directly appointed by the Municipality after its constitution and also claimed pension. The Single Judge had ordered that all four be treated as eligible for pension, with calculation based on higher pay scales, and gave a six‑week timeline for payment.
  • State’s position: Accepted pension for the three former Panchayat employees but argued that Goswami, being a direct municipal employee, should have his pension funded by the Municipality, not the State, citing that his contributions were recorded under “Civil Deposits” and that he had not opted for the pension scheme.
  • Legal precedents cited:
  • Una Nagarpalika vs. Kaliben Balubhai Makwana & Anr., (2019) 12 SCC 340 – Supreme Court upheld that both Panchayat‑converted employees and directly appointed municipal employees are entitled to pension if GPF contributions were regularly deducted.
  • Chief Officer vs. Muhammad Irshad Husainbhai Baloch, 2011 (0) AIJEL‑HC 224820 – Division Bench held that regular GPF deductions guarantee pension.
  • The Division Bench decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 15691‑15700/2013 and Civil Appeal No. 5529/2016.
  • Court’s observations:

1. The distinction between employees originally from Panchayat and those directly appointed by the Municipality is irrelevant where GPF contributions have been deducted throughout service.

2. Both the Municipality and the State acknowledge that GPF deductions were made for Goswami from 01/01/2006 until retirement on 30/04/2019 (joining 15/12/2004, designation Wireman).

3. The head of the deposit (Civil Deposits) is immaterial; the employee’s right to pension arises from the existence of GPF deductions, not the classification of the deposit.

4. The dispute over which authority (State or Municipality) bears the financial liability for the pension cannot be used to deny the employee his pension right.

5. The Single Judge correctly relied on the Division Bench and Supreme Court judgments that mandate pension payment when GPF contributions are made.

Final Outcome

  • The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Dharampur Municipality, thereby upholding the Single Judge’s order that all four petitioners, including Pradhyumangiri Vallabhgiri Goswami, are entitled to pension and pensionary benefits.
  • The court directed that the pension be calculated with the higher pay scale and that the payment be effected within six weeks as previously ordered.
  • The connected Civil Application (for stay) was also disposed of.

Topics: Pension, Municipal Employment