Entitlement to pension is determined by regular GPF deductions regardless of initial appointment by Panchayat or Municipality.

Respondent No. 4, Pradyumangiri Vallabhgiri Goswami, was appointed as a Wireman by the Dharampur Nagarpalika on 01.08.1994, shortly after the Nagarpalika's constitution

Unlike other co-petitioners who were transferred from the erstwhile Gram Panchayat, Respondent No. 4 was a direct municipal appointee

The Nagarpalika deducted General Provident Fund (GPF) contributions from his salary starting 01.01.2006 until his retirement on 30.04.2019

Post-retirement, his claim for pension was allowed by a Single Judge Bench

The Nagarpalika and the State Government contested this, arguing that as a direct municipal employee, he was covered by the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) rather than the pension scheme applicable to erstwhile Panchayat employees, and that the Nagarpalika should bear the liability if pension were granted

1. Whether a direct employee of a Nagarpalika is entitled to pensionary benefits if General Provident Fund (GPF) deductions were made during their service.

2. Whether the distinction between an erstwhile Panchayat employee and a direct Nagarpalika appointee is significant in determining pension eligibility.

The court primarily applied the principle established in Chief Officer v. Muhammad Irshad Husainbhai Baloch (2011), which held that regular GPF deductions and contributions up to the age of superannuation are sufficient to entitle an employee to pensionary benefits

It further relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Una Nagarpalika v. Kaliben Balubhai Makwana & Anr. (2019) 12 SCC 340, which held that once an employer treats an employee as a member of the GPF and deducts regular contributions, the distinction between erstwhile Panchayat employees and direct Municipal employees becomes insignificant for the purpose of pension eligibility

The Court observed that the Nagarpalika’s own records and certificates confirmed that GPF deductions were made from Respondent No. 4's salary from 2006 until his retirement

Applying the Una Nagarpalika precedent, the Court reasoned that the act of deducting GPF creates a vested right to pension, regardless of the employee's initial mode of recruitment (direct vs. absorbed)

The State’s contention that the money was deposited under the "Major Head – Civil Deposits" rather than a specific pension head was dismissed, as the accounting classification is a matter of administrative control beyond the employee's influence

Furthermore, the Court noted that the internal dispute between the State and the Nagarpalika regarding who should bear the financial burden of the pension cannot be used as a ground to deny the employee's legal entitlement

The Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal, confirming the Single Judge’s order

It directed that while the State and Municipality may resolve their internal dispute regarding the liability to pay, the pensionary benefits must be extended to the respondent based on the declared law that GPF deduction is the primary criterion for pension eligibility