C/SCA/2856/2023 ORDER DATED: 22/02/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2856 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2857 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2858 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2859 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2860 of 2023
==========================================================
AKHMABHAI SOMABHAI VAGADIYA
Versus
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CHINTAN N DESAI(9940) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR ADITYA PATHAK, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 22/02/2023
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Chintan N. Desai on behalf of the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Aditya Pathak on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. By way of these petitions, the petitioners challenge decision of the respondents dated 18.06.2015, whereby the petitioners have been denied the benefit of policy of the State Government vide Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and furthermore the petitioners have been terminated from service.
Page 1 of 7 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 24 20:46:00 IST 2023
C/SCA/2856/2023 ORDER DATED: 22/02/2023
3. It would appear that the present petitioners had approached this Court initially by preferring Special Civil Application No. 3895 of 2015 and other allied matters, inter alia seeking benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and whereas a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 23.03.2015 had inter alia directed the respondents to examine the cases of the petitioners individually and if the petitioners were found eligible, then the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 should be extended to the petitioners. The exercise was directed to be completed within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of a copy of order. It appears that the impugned order is the order in compliance of the said decision of this Court and whereas in addition to holding that the petitioners would not be entitled to benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, the respondents have also terminated the services of the petitioners.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Desai for the petitioners would submit that as such, the petitioners had worked for approximately 15 years with the respondents and of the said 15 years, as per a Chart which is a summary of the attendant sheet of the petitioners, the petitioners would have worked for more than 240 days between 10 to 12 years. Learned Advocate would submit that a perusal of the Chart would reveal that the holidays etc. which have to be included in the days to be counted as days of actual service have Page 2 of 7 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 24 20:46:00 IST 2023 C/SCA/2856/2023 ORDER DATED: 22/02/2023 not been included. Learned Advocate also relies, in this context, upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation Vs. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation, reported in (1985) 4 SCC 71. 4.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Desai would further submit that upon the fact of the petitioners having worked for more than 240 days for around 10 years being clear, while the petitioners would be entitled for the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, on the other hand, the termination order also would be required to be set aside. 4.2 Learned Advocate Mr. Desai would further submit that though the order of termination and rejecting the claim for benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, is dated 18.06.2015, learned Advocate would submit that any conditions as may be deemed appropriate may be imposed by this Court, to balance the equities and whereas learned Advocate would request this Court to direct the respondent authorities to grant benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and also request this Court to quash and set aside the order of termination.
5. As against the same, these petitions are vehemently objected to by learned AGP Mr. Pathak on behalf of the respondent-State, who would submit that the petitioners having not challenged the impugned order for Page 3 of 7 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 24 20:46:00 IST 2023 C/SCA/2856/2023 ORDER DATED: 22/02/2023 approximately 08 years, have lost their rights to claim for benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and also to challenge the order of termination. Learned AGP would further submit that the case of the petitioners has been appropriately considered by the respondents authorities by relying upon the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 read with Government Resolution dated 15.09.2014.
6. Heard learned Advocate for the respective parties.
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, while the State could legitimately oppose the stand of the petitioners insofar as the aspect of termination is concerned, more particularly on the ground of delay, but in the considered opinion of this Court, insofar as the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 are concerned, irrespective of the fact that vide the impugned order the petitioners' services have been terminated, yet the benefits that had accrued in favour of the petitioners till the date of termination, could not be denied to the petitioners on the ground of the petitioners challenging the said order belatedly. At the most in the considered opinion of this Court, appropriate orders, to balance the equities could be passed. Even otherwise in the considered opinion of this Court, as submitted by learned Advocate for the petitioners, the only reason for termination as appearing in the impugned order being the observation Page 4 of 7 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 24 20:46:00 IST 2023 C/SCA/2856/2023 ORDER DATED: 22/02/2023 that the petitioners have not worked for more than 240 days for 05 years and whereas since it prima facie appears that the petitioners would have worked at least for 10 years where they would have worked for more than 240 days, therefore if the finding which had led to the termination, would require correction, then automatically/consequentially, the order of termination also may be required to be interfered with.
8. Having regard to the above observations, in the considered opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be met, if the petitioners are relegated to the respondents authorities and whereas the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the case of the petitioners as directed by this Court. Having regard to the same, the following directions are passed :
(i) The petitioners to submit a detail representation, if required by relying the judgments of this Court or the Hon'ble Apex Court, with regard to grant of benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 upto the date of termination i.e. 18.06.2015, more particularly the petitioners, may make appropriate representation and contend that the petitioners would have indeed worked for more than 240 days for approximately more than 10 years.
Page 5 of 7 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 24 20:46:00 IST 2023
C/SCA/2856/2023 ORDER DATED: 22/02/2023 (ii) Such representation shall be preferred within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
(iii) Upon such representation being received, the respondents authorities shall consider and decide the same within a period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of the same.
(vi) In case the respondents authorities came to a conclusion that the petitioners would be entitled to benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 upto the date of termination i.e. 18.06.2015, then the respondents shall make appropriate payments within a period of 06 weeks thereafter.
(v) It is clarified that the petitioners shall not be entitled for any interest from the date of the order of termination i.e. 18.06.2015 till the actual payment i.e. within 06 weeks from the date of the decision.
(vi) In case the respondents authorities come to a conclusion that the petitioners were indeed entitled to benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, more particularly if the authorities come to a conclusion that the petitioners had worked for more than 240 days for around 10 years as the petitioners claim, then the respondents shall also consider the case of the petitioners for Page 6 of 7 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 24 20:46:00 IST 2023 C/SCA/2856/2023 ORDER DATED: 22/02/2023 reinstatement sympathetically.
(vii) In case the respondents consider the case of the petitioners for reinstatement, the petitioners, as fairly submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Desai, upon instructions, shall not claim any back-wages for the period between the date of termination till the date of reinstatement, if any.
(viii) In case the petitioners are aggrieved by decision of the respondent authorities either on (i) the aspect of entitlement of the petitioners to benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, and (ii) with regard to reinstatement in service, then it would be open for the petitioners to challenge the same before appropriate forum in accordance with law.
9. With the above observations and directions, the present petitions are disposed of as partly allowed.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) BDSONGARA Page 7 of 7 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 24 20:46:00 IST 2023