Gujarat High Court
Surendranagar District Panchayat ... vs Savitaben Dalabhai Soya on 7 April, 2025
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/323/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 323 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19456 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 323 of 2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 379 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19456 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS PATENT
APPEAL NO. 379 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19456 of 2022
==========================================================
SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT PANCHAYAT THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER & ANR.
Versus
SAVITABEN DALABHAI SOYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MS. SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR NILESH M SHAH(780) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 07/04/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. Both the Letters Patent Appeals emanate from the judgment and order dated 20.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No.19456 of 2022.
2. The appellant/original petitioner- Surendranagar District Panchayat has filed the captioned Letters Patent Appeal No.323 of Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Wed Apr 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 09 22:05:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/323/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025 undefined 2025 assailing the judgment and order dated 20.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein and whereby, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant- Surendranagar District Panchayat to grant retirement benefits to the respondent employee by taking into consideration her service from 01.01.1991 to 31.01.2021, whereas the respondent employee- original writ petitioner-employee has assailed the very same judgment and order by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.379 of 2025 to the extent of refusing to grant of actual benefits for the period from 16.06.1993 to 31.01.2021.
3. The facts recorded by the learned Single Judge are not in dispute. The same are reiterated as under:
"4. The brief facts of the case, as stated by learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, appearing for the petitioner are that the petitioner was employed by Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat (R&B) Sub Division, Limdi, i.e. Respondent No.3 herein, as a daily-wager in the year 1980 and he continued to work as such, till the termination of his services along with other co-workers by the concerned Respondent vide order dated 21.10.1987. Hence, the petitioner and his co-workers raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Surendranagar, by way of Reference (LCS) Nos. 234 & 236 of 1991.
4.1 Labour Court, Surendranagar, partly allowed both the References vide order dated 15.06.1993, by quashing and setting aside the order dated 21.10.1987, and thereby granted reinstatement to the petitioner and the co-workers on their original post, as per their seniority, but, without continuity of service and the back-wages.
4.1.1 Being aggrieved with non-grant of continuity of service and the back-wages, the petitioner challenged the order of the Labour Court, Surendranagar, before this Court by way of Special Civil Application Nos. 2733 of 1994, where, the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment and order dated 01.08.2005 partly allowed the same and quashed and set aside the order of the Labour Court, Surendranagar, to the extent it did not grant the benefit of continuity of service to the petitioner and ordered the concerned Respondents to grant the same from the date of filing of the Reference, i.e. from the year 1991. However, the petitioner was not granted the benefit of back-wages.
4.1.2 After the order dated 01.08.2005, since, the petitioners and the co-workers were not granted reinstatement, they were constrained Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Wed Apr 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 09 22:05:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/323/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025 undefined to file Special Civil Application No. 5938 of 2012 and ultimately, they came to be reinstated in service vide order dated 19.02.2013 and thereafter, the petitioner continued to work, till he attained the age of superannuation, i.e. up to 31.01.2021. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to an application made by her, she was granted the benefit of GR dated 17.10.1988, with effect from 01.04.2018, by taking into consideration her reinstatement in service with effect from 08.04.2013. vide order dated 09.09.2020."
4. Since the employee was not offered the retirement benefits by considering the service from 19.02.2013 to 31.01.2021 i.e. for 8 years, the captioned writ petition was filed.
4.1 It is the case of the employee that though she has been granted the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, the benefits for the period from 19.02.2013 to 31.01.2021 was only considered by wiping out the earlier services since 1991. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by directing the District Panchayat to count the aforesaid period for the purpose of fixation of payment of retirement benefits.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw appearing for the appellant- District Panchayat has submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in error in directing the Panchayat to count the aforementioned period for the purpose of fixation of retirement benefits. He has submitted that in the award dated 15.06.1993 passed in Reference (LCS) No.234 of 1991, the Labour Court has not awarded the continuity of service, and hence, since the employee has not completed 10 years of service and has not worked for the intervening period, she is not entitled to the retirement benefits.
5.1 It is submitted that the respondent - employee was granted the benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 by the order dated Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Wed Apr 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 09 22:05:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/323/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025 undefined 09.09.2020 and was placed in fixed pay, after completion of five years of service. Thus, it is urged that the respondent employee is not entitled to the benefits by counting the period from reinstatement to retirement only.
6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Nilesh Shah appearing for the respondent employee/original petitioner and also appellant of Letters Patent Appeal No.379 of 2025, has submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in error in not granting the actual benefits for the period from 1993 to 2021, since the employee is already extended the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. He has submitted that once the District Panchayat reinstated the appellant (employee) on 19.02.2013, and after rendering continuous service, she is entitled for actual benefits till 31.01.2021 i.e. when the employee has reached the age of superannuation.
7. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. As mentioned herein above, both the District Panchayat and its employee-original petitioner, are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
8. At the outset, we are of the opinion that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference, as the learned Single Judge has passed the order after considering the relevant facts, as mentioned herein above, which are not in dispute.
9. The employee, who was serving under the District Panchayat, was terminated in the year-1987, which culminated into the reference Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Wed Apr 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 09 22:05:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/323/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025 undefined proceedings being Reference (LCS) Nos. 234 and 236 of 1991. The Labour Court, Surendranagar, partly allowed the reference proceedings by quashing and setting aside the termination order, and thereby ordered reinstatement of the employee and the co-worker as per seniority but without continuity of service and back-wages. The said award was further assailed by the employee by filing the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.2733 of 1994, which was partly allowed vide order dated 01.08.2005 to the extent of setting aside the award of the Labour Court of not granting the benefit of continuity of service, and the District Panchayat was directed to grant the continuity from the date of filing of reference i.e. from the year- 1991, however, no back wages were granted. Another round of litigation was also initiated by the employee, since they are not reinstated and ultimately after the orders passed by this Court, employees were reinstated on 19.02.2013 and the employee reached the age of superannuation on 31.01.2021.
10. At this stage, we may also record that the employee was extended the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 with effect from 01.04.2018 by considering her reinstatement with effect from 08.04.2013 and the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 has been promulgated by the State Government for granting the pay scale to the daily wagers after completion of 5,10 or 15 years of service, and such daily wagers are also entitled to pensionary benefits. Accordingly, the employee was also extended the pay and the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Since, only period from 19.02.2013 to 31.01.2021 was counted i.e. 8 years, which resulted into denial of retirement benefits, the employee filed the captioned writ petition. Thus, the issue which falls for Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Wed Apr 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 09 22:05:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/323/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025 undefined deliberation is as to whether, the employee can be denied the benefits of past services from the year-1991 or not for the purpose of fixation of pension or not, and whether she would be entitled to actual benefits of the period from 16.06.1993 to 31.01.2021.
11. It is not in dispute that this Court in the writ petition filed by the employee by the judgment and order dated 01.08.2005 directed the District Panchayat to grant continuity of service from the date of the reference i.e. from year-1991. The aforesaid order has been accepted by both the sides. The employee was not granted the benefit of back wages. When the aforesaid judgment and order was passed, the respondent employee did not assail it further and it was accepted. Hence, the service of the employee has to be considered continuous from 1991 for all purposes. However, as directed by this Court, she is not entitled to any back wages and no benefit of earlier services is required to be considered. When the respondent-employee was required to be reinstated immediately after the aforesaid judgment and order, and since she was not reinstated, she was constrained to file the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.5938 of 2012, and she was reinstated in the year-2013. Thereafter, the respondent was granted the benefits arising from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The issue raised in the present appeals is no more res integra. There are catena of judgments which deal with the issue that after the termination is set aside and the employee is directed to be reinstated with continuity of service, the entire service from the date of appointment till he/she retires, is required to be considered for the purpose of grant of benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.
Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Wed Apr 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 09 22:05:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/323/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025 undefined
12. Thus, the District Panchayat has to count the service from 01.01.1991 to 31.01.2021 for fixation of pension and retirement benefits of the employee. So far as the claim of the respondent employee for actual benefits from 16.06.1993 to 31.01.2021 is concerned, the respondent employee is also not entitled to the same since the learned Single Judge by the order dated 01.08.2005 passed in the writ petition, has denied the back wages and only confined the relief for fixation of continuity of service. There was no direction issued by this Court for grant of actual benefits. Though, the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 01.08.2005, no clarification was sought by the respondent employee and in fact, the order was accepted by the employee.
13. The respondent is not entitled for actual benefits for the aforesaid period since the employee is already reinstated in the year- 2013, and also paid the benefits arising from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 by fixing her pay as envisages in the Resolution. The respondent did not file any proceedings at the relevant time for claiming the actual benefits. It is also pertinent to note that when the respondent was not reinstated they filed the aforementioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No.5938 of 2012, which was disposed by the order dated 08.03.2013 by recording the statement of learned advocate appearing for the respondent-employee that since she has reinstated in service, she would not be pressing Recovery Application No.327 of 2000 pending before the Labour Court, Surendranagar. Thus, at that time also, no clarification was sought for or any order was invited by the respondent to claim actual benefits for the intervening period.
Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Wed Apr 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 09 22:05:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/323/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2025 undefined
14. Hence, we do not find merit in the submissions advanced either by learned advocate Mr. Munshaw appearing for the District Panchayat or of Mr.Shah appearing for the employee.
15. Hence, we do not find any infirmity and illegality in the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeals are rejected, accordingly. The connected civil applications also stand disposed of, accordingly.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) SUYASH SRIVASTAVA/18 AND 20 Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Wed Apr 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 09 22:05:33 IST 2025