HIRBAI WD/O LATE KASAMBHAI ISMAILBHAI SAMEJAversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF MORBI

     C/SCA/10012/2018                           JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

        R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10012 of 2018


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

=============================================
            Approved for Reporting             Yes          No
                                                            √
=============================================
 HIRBAI WD/O LATE KASAMBHAI ISMAILBHAI SAMEJA & ANR.
                        Versus
           MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF MORBI
=============================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ANAND B GOGIA(5849) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1
MR BB GOGIA(5851) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1
MS KAJAL L KALWANI(6623) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1
MR HARIBHAI PATEL FOR MR DEEPAK P SANCHELA(2696) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

                          Date : 12/03/2026
                            JUDGMENT


1.       Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Haribhai Patel, learned
advocate, waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent.
With the consent of learned advocates for the parties, the
matter is taken up for hearing.


2.       Heard Mr.Anand B. Gogia, learned advocate for the
petitioner and Mr.Haribhai Patel, learned advocate for the
respondent.



                                Page 1 of 10
     C/SCA/10012/2018                                JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026




3.       The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :


         “A.     YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit the petition.

         B.     Respondent may please be directed by writ of mandamus or
         by any other appropriate writ, orders, directions to release the
         pension / family pension to the Petitioner from the date of
         retirement of deceased employee / husband of the petitioner and
         from the death of her husband along with interest at the rate of 9%
         and may further be pleased to direct to adjust / recover their
         amount of contribution of CPF / difference and gratuity, if any, from
         arrears of pension payable to the petitioner and may continue
         paying her family pension in accordance with pension scheme.”


SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE :

4.       The short facts of the case appear to be that the husband
of the original petitioner was serving in the respondent-
Municipality and came to be retired on 29/02/1995. At that
point of time, undisputedly, there was no pension scheme
framed by the respondent. Later in point of time, a pension
scheme and its rules were framed by the respondent-
Municipality. As per Rule 3 of such Pension Rules, such
pension rules came into effect from 01/04/1995 and it would
apply       to    full   time   and      permanent   employees          of    the
Corporation working as on 01/04/1995.


4.1      The public notices came to be issued by the respondent-
Municipality on 26/02/1999 and 03/04/1999, calling upon the
employees concerned to submit their option as to whether
they are opting for the pension scheme or not.


4.2      The husband of the original petitioner appears to have
submitted an option form on 23/03/1999. The respondent-


                                      Page 2 of 10
     C/SCA/10012/2018                        JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026




Municipality denied the case of the husband of the original
petitioner when it passed an order on 09/10/2003, whereby
the list of eligible employees was published. The reason for
not granting the benefit of option of pension under the said
pension rules to the husband of the petitioner was that he had
already retired from service prior to 01/04/1995.


4.3      It appears that during his lifetime, the employee -
husband of the petitioner, did not thought it fit to approach
this Court by way of any petition. Furthermore, he died on
04/01/2006 and the present petition is filed in the year 2018
by his widow seeking pension and family pension from the
respondent. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to show
that prior to filing of this petition, the original petitioner ever
approached the respondent-Municipality in regard to the
claim of any pension or family pension, etc.


4.4         The original petitioner – widow died during pendency
of this petition, survived by her legal heirs – children. Thus,
present petition is pursued by children of deceased –
employee.


SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER :

5.       Mr. Gogia, learned advocate for the petitioner, would
submit that as the husband of the original petitioner was a
permanent employee of the respondent-Corporation, he was
entitled to receive pension and accordingly, the original
petitioner was also entitled to receive family pension until she
alive, which was wrongly denied by the respondent.


                              Page 3 of 10
  C/SCA/10012/2018                                JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026




5.1   Mr. Gogia, learned advocate, would further submit that
the public notices issued by the respondent clearly indicate
that employees of the respondent-Municipality appointed
prior to 01/04/1995 are also covered under the pension
scheme floated by the respondent. It is submitted that once
the husband of the petitioner was allowed to submit an option
form in regard to obtaining the benefit of pension and as such,
the same was processed by the respondent, later on, the
respondent cannot be permitted to absolve from its liability to
pay pension/family pension.

5.2   Mr. Gogia, learned advocate would further submit that
the reason assigned by the respondent in rejecting the claim
of the husband of the petitioner vide its order dated
09/10/2003 is erroneous and perverse, inasmuch as the
husband of the petitioner may be retired prior to 01/04/1995;
but being a permanent employee, as per the advertisement
issued by the respondent-Corporation, he would be covered
under it.


5.3   Mr.Gogia, learned advocate would further submit that in
the aforesaid public notices, in the footnote, it was specifically
observed that the Establishment Department will have to
intimate about the said option form to the retired employees
of the respondent. This would mean that all retired employees
of the respondent are covered under the pension scheme.


5.4   Making         the   above   submissions,    Mr.Gogia,        learned
advocate for the petitioner, would submit to this Court to
allow the present petition.


                                   Page 4 of 10
     C/SCA/10012/2018                        JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026




SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT :

6.       Per contra, Mr. Haribhai Patel, learned advocate for the
respondent, would submit that the present petition may be
dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, as the husband
of the petitioner retired in the year 1995 and the present
petition seeking the benefit of pension was filed in the year
2018.


6.1      Mr. Patel, learned advocate, would further submit that
at no point of time, the respondent ever prepared any pension
paper or processed it as claimed in the petition. It is
submitted that the averments made in para 13 and 14 of the
reply filed by the respondent are not controverted; thereby, it
is clear that this Court has been misguided and misled by the
original petitioner in regard to the averments made insofar as
Annexure-C is concerned.


6.2      Mr.Patel, learned advocate would further submit that as
per the pension rules framed by the Municipality, only those
employees who are working full time and permanent as on
01/04/1995 are covered under pension scheme. It is submitted
that as the petitioner has not challenged the pension rules
framed by the respondent, no liability would attach to the
respondent to pay the pension to its employee who retired
prior to 01/04/1995.


6.3      Mr. Patel, learned advocate would further submit that
there is a complete misreading on the part of the petitioner in



                              Page 5 of 10
     C/SCA/10012/2018                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026




regard to the public notices issued by the respondent-
Municipality, inasmuch as the public notices only speak that
the option form is available to an employee engaged prior to
01/04/1995 and it would not speak remotely that it would
apply to retired employees who retired prior to 01/04/1995. It
is    submitted         that    Mr.Gogia,        learned     advocate        for    the
petitioner, relied upon the footnote of public notice would also
not indicate that it also applies to retired employees prior to
01/04/1995, inasmuch as it came to be published in the year
1999, whereby the employees retired between 1995 to 1999,
require to be informed by the Establishment Department of
the respondent.


6.4      Making         the    above    submissions,         Mr.Patel,        learned
advocate for the respondent would submit to this Court to
dismiss the present petition.


ANALYSIS :

7.       Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and upon perusal of the pleadings and documents, it is
not in dispute that the husband of the original petitioner was
a permanent employee of the respondent who retired from the
service of the respondent on 29/02/1995. The pension scheme
was framed by the respondent in the year 1999 and as per
Rule 3 of Pension Rules, it is applied to the full time and
permanent employees of the respondent serving as on
01/04/1995. The aforesaid Rule 3 of the Pension Rules reads
thus:



                                       Page 6 of 10
     C/SCA/10012/2018                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026




          “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.

             The Pension Fund Scheme of the Municipality shall apply to
          those who join the service after the sanction of these rules
          automatically.

             Once the option is offered it shall be treated as final and
          binding.”


8.       A bare reading of the aforesaid rule would clearly
indicate that those permanent employees who were working
as on 01/04/1995 would stand covered by the pension scheme
framed by the respondent.


9.       The main emphasis of the petitioner to claim pensionary
benefit is on basis of two public notices published by the
respondent on 26/02/1999 and 03/04/1999, respectively. I
have minutely gone through the aforesaid notices published
by the respondent, but nothing fruitful comes out in favor of
the original petitioner. The latter portion of the aforesaid
notice would only indicate that those employees engaged
prior to 01/04/1995 shall have to immediately opt for the
pension form and to submit the option form. This would not
mean that it would apply to employees retired prior to
01/04/1995.



10.      The footnote of the aforesaid advertisement would also
not carry the case of the petitioner any further, inasmuch as it


                                     Page 7 of 10
  C/SCA/10012/2018                         JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026




only indicates that the Establishment Department of the
respondent requires to intimate retired employees of the
respondent about the pension form. The aforesaid public
notices came to be published in the year 1999, whereby the
employees of the respondent who retired between 1995 and
1999 were eligible to get the benefit of pension form and only
that class of employees were required to be intimated by the
department concerned, unlike the husband of the petitioner,
retired on 29/02/1995.


11.   In any case, the right of the employee of the respondent
to claim pension would be governed by the Pension Scheme
and its Rules framed by the respondent. The claim of the
pension of husband of the petitioner is not covered as per
Rule 3 of the said Pension Scheme/Rules. Thus, in view of the
foregoing, 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. The
reason for not granting pensionary benefit to the husband of
the petitioner was that he retired from service prior to
01/04/1995.


12.   Apart from the aforesaid, there is a huge delay in
approaching this Court by way of this petition, as the husband
of the petitioner, who applied to opt for pensionary benefit in
1999, died in the year 2006 and until then, he had not thought
it fit either to submit a representation to the respondent or to
approach this Court, as the case may be. Likewise, after his
demise, the original petitioner, being the widow of the retired


                            Page 8 of 10
  C/SCA/10012/2018                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026




employee, took almost 12 years to approach this Court, that
too without submitting any proof to show that prior to
approaching this Court, at any given point of time, she had
approached           the   respondent        making      the     claim       for
pension/family pension.


13.   Lastly, during the course of arguments, it was submitted
by Mr.Patel, learned advocate for the respondent, that
Annexure-C, which is placed on record, is a got-up document,
as there is no seal of the respondent-Corporation on it. It is
also submitted that at no point of time, the respondent
prepared the pension papers of the husband of the original
petitioner. There is substance in said argument; prima facie,
this Court may be swayed by the fact that once the
respondent had prepared the pension papers of husband of
original petitioner, it is unclear why his claim of pension was
then denied.



14.    This Court vide its order dated 09/03/2026, passed the
following order :


       “[1] The matter was argued threadbare by the learned
       advocates for the respective parties.

       [2] The Court has drawn the attention of para-13 & 14 of the
       affidavit in reply filed by the respondents and drawn attention
       of Mr. Gogia, learned advocate for the petitioner that as such,
       there is no specific denial to such facts stated in para-13 & 14
       of the reply in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner.
       Furthermore, the copy of Annexure-C, is a typed copy, which
       speaks of preparation of pension papers by the respondent
       but the original is not produced wherefrom it can be confirmed
       as to whether the respondent has in fact prepared it.


                                  Page 9 of 10
      C/SCA/10012/2018                                                               JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026




             [3] Mr. Gogia, learned advocate requests for one day
             accommodation to get proper instructions.

             [4] S. O. to 10th March, 2026. List on top of the board.”


15.        Apropos the aforesaid order, Mr.Gogia, learned advocate
for the petitioner, would only submit that the original
petitioner died during the pendency of this petition and the
rejoinder is filed by one of the legal heirs, being the daughter
of the original petitioner, who may not be aware of all the
facts, including the existence of Annexure-C. This Court would
have gone further deep into the matter, as no misstatement or
misleading statement can be entertained by this Court and as
such, no discretionary relief can be granted in favor of the
petitioner if it is found that there is an attempt on the part of
the petitioner to make a false or incorrect statement. Yet, this
Court would not like to take such recourse by dismissing this
petition on this ground alone, as the issue pertains to the
pension/family pension of the petitioner, who is no more
surviving.


16.        In view of the foregoing reasons and conclusions, I do
not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the
present petition is dismissed, albeit with no costs. Rule is
discharged.


                                                                               (MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: GAURAVKUMAR JANARDANBHAI THAKER(HC00951), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 12/03/2026 11:37:22




                                                       Page 10 of 10