SAHEBJI S/O BANESING RAIJADA vs UNION OF INDIA

Court
Gujarat High Court

C/SCA/8433/2024 (GJHC240112322024) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8433 of 2024
==========================================================
SAHEBJI S/O BANESING RAIJADA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANAND B GOGIA(5849) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS KAJAL L KALWANI(6623) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SHUSHIL R SHUKLA(5603) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA

Date : 31/08/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. The petitioner was initially working in Central Reserve
Police Force (CRPF) from 7.3.1969 to 1.6.1990, i.e. is for a
period of 21 years. The petitioner retired voluntarily from
CRPF and thereafter, sought for an appointment in All India
Radio in the year 1994.
2. On 16.12.1994, the petitioner was appointed in All India
Radio, where he served till he attained the age of
superannuation on 30.4.2009. In other words, he rendered the
service for a period of 14 years in All India Radio.
3. The petitioner, thereafter, made a claim for counting his
past service in the CRPF for the purpose of payment of
pension and gratuity. This request was rejected on the ground
that Rule 7(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules did not permit a
separate pension on a government servant securing a
Page 1 of 4
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:53:40 IST 2026

C/SCA/8433/2024 (GJHC240112322024) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
superannuation pension and thereafter being re-employed.
The claim for past service under CRPF was also rejected on
the ground that it was a paramilitary service and thereby a
civil service and Rule 19 of the CCS (Pension) Rules only
permits condonation of delay of break in service only in
respect of military service.
4. Consequently, the petitioner approached the Tribunal.
5. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, has taken the view
that Rule 19 can have no application to the petitioner since he
had been employed by the CRPF which is not a military
service and, therefore, he could not seek for condonation of
the break in service.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that Rule
28 of the CCS (Pension) Rules provides for condonation of
interruption in service in respect of an interruption of service
between two spells of civil service and since the authorities
consider the service under CRPF to be civil service, according
to Rule 28, the past service rendered in CRPF would have to
be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing
pension and gratuity.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance
on the judgment rendered by the Kerala High Court in the
case of G. Bhasi v The Union of India and others reported
in MANU/KE/0889/2017 , in which a similar case of an
employee who had worked in CRPF for 20 years and had been
relieved from service and thereafter being employed in AIR
was directed to be granted the benefit of past service.
Page 2 of 4
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:53:40 IST 2026

C/SCA/8433/2024 (GJHC240112322024) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
8. Rule 28 of the CCS (Pension) Rules reads as follows:
“ 28. Condonation of interruption in service : -
(Relevant and Important)
(1) In the absence of a specific indication to the contrary
in the service book, an interruption between two spells
of civil service rendered by a Government servant under
Government, including civil service rendered and paid
out of Defense Services Estimates or Railway Estimates,
shall be treated as automatically condoned and the pre-
interruption service treated as qualifying service.
(2) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to interruption
caused by resignation, dismissal or removal from service
or for participation in a strike.
(3) The period of interruption referred to in sub-rule (1)
shall not count as qualifying service."
9. As can be seen from the above, any interruption
between two spells of civil service is to be treated as
automatically condoned and the pre-interrupted service would
have to be treated as qualifying service.
10. Admittedly in the very impugned order, the respondents
have specifically contended that CRPF is a civil service and as
a consequence, the break in service or the interruption
between the service rendered by the petitioner in CRPF and
the service rendered by him in AIR would have to be
automatically condoned and the pre-interrupted service in
CRPF is to be treated as qualifying service.
11. The argument of the respondents that the past service
benefits had not been mentioned by the petitioner and he
would, therefore, be dis-entitled for claiming the past service
cannot also be accepted.
Page 3 of 4
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:53:40 IST 2026

C/SCA/8433/2024 (GJHC240112322024) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
12. Admittedly the fact that the petitioner was appointed as
a Watchman only because he had rendered past service in
CRPF is not in serious dispute. This argument that the details
were not mentioned by the petitioner in the form securing
employment would really be of no consequence.
13. If, as a result of this order, the petitioner is required to
pay back the pension that he has secured from CRPF, the
same shall be done by the petitioner without any demur.
14. In the light of aforesaid specific Rule, the denial of the
benefit of past service cannot be sustained and the same is
accordingly quashed and set aside. The writ petition is
ALLOWED.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)
Sd/-
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
OMKAR
Page 4 of 4
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:53:40 IST 2026