Jayprakash Kanaiyalal Mehta vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court

Jayprakash Kanaiyalal Mehta vs State Of Gujarat on 8 April, 2025

Author: Nirzar S. Desai

Bench: Nirzar S. Desai

                                                                                                                  NEUTRAL CITATION




                           C/SCA/19038/2021                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025

                                                                                                                   undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19038 of 2021


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI                                Sd./-

                      ==========================================================

                                   Approved for Reporting                        Yes           No
                                                                                  ✔
                      ==========================================================
                                               JAYPRAKASH KANAIYALAL MEHTA
                                                           Versus
                                                  STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MS HARSHAL N PANDYA(3141) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                      MR SG UDHWANI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
                      ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

                                                          Date : 08/04/2025

                                                          ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard, learned Advocate, Ms. Pandya, appearing for the Petitioner and learned AGP, Mr. Udhwani, for the Respondents.

2. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, this matter is taken-up for final hearing and disposal, today. Hence, RULE. Learned AGP waives service for the Respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case, as is stated by learned Advocate, Ms. Pandya, appearing for the petitioner are that after following the due recruitment procedure, the petitioner was, Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Wed Apr 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 09 23:31:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19038/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025 undefined initially, appointed on the post of driver by Respondent No.2, on monthly fixed pay of Rs.3,000/- vide order dated 30.06.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner made a few representations for regularization of his services as driver and ultimately, vide office order dated 27.07.2007, the services of the petitioner came to be regularized with effect from 16.02.2006, as per GR dated 16.02.2006, which provides mechanism for regularization of services of the employees, recruited by way of direct recruitment, on fixed pay basis.

3.1 As per the terms of the appointment / regularization order dated 27.07.2007, the petitioner's appointment was considered a fresh appointment, with effect from 16.02.2006, and he was placed in the fixed pay of Rs.2,500/- per month for the period of five years.

3.2 As can be seen from the pleadings made in this petition, at the relevant point of time, the petitioner did not challenge or objected to the order dated 27.07.2007, whereby, the petitioner's services were ordered to be treated as a fresh appointee, that too with effect from 16.02.2006, and the petitioner never raised any claim or grievance that his services should be counted from 30.06.2000 and it is only after the completion of fixed pay service for the five years and he was placed in the regular pay-scale and he started getting the regular salary, i.e. for the first time in the year 2013, the petitioner made a representation, seeking modification in the order dated 27.07.2007, so as to treat his date of appointment as 30.06.2000 and not 16.02.2006.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19038/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025 undefined 3.3 The petitioner went on making a few representations between 2013 to 2019 and ultimately, by the order dated 19.09.2019, which was communicated to the petitioner on 13.07.2020, his representation came to be rejected.

Hence, the present petition.

4. Learned Advocate, Ms. Pandya, appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner's initial date of appointment is 30.06.2000, whereby, the petitioner was appointed, initially, on the post of driver for monthly fixed pay of Rs.2,000/- and the petitioner continued to serve as such, till the order dated 27.07.2007 was passed, whereby, the services of the petitioner came to be regularized and the petitioner was placed in the monthly fixed pay of Rs.3000/- for the period of five years with effect from 16.02.2006.

4.1 Learned Advocate, Ms. Pandya, submitted that the impugned order is contrary even to the GR dated 16.02.2006, which provides for five years' of fixed pay tenure, whereas, in the instant case, the petitioner was made to work on fixed pay basis from the year 2000 till 2011, i.e. for almost 11 years. It was submitted that, thus, by way of the impugned order dated 27.07.2007, the services of the petitioner for 10 precious years is completely wiped-out and therefore, the aforesaid mistake committed by the Respondents is required to be rectified by this Court by issuing suitable directions / by passing Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Wed Apr 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 09 23:31:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19038/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025 undefined appropriate order.

4.2 By making the above submissions, it was prayed that by issuing suitable directions / passing necessary orders, the order dated 27.07.2007 be modified / rectified and this petition may be allowed.

No other submission was made.

5. On the other hand, learned AGP, Mr. Udhwani, appearing for the Respondent-State submitted that this petition suffers from the gross delay, i.e. the order dated 27.07.2007 is sought to be challenged by way of this petition in the year 2021, i.e. after the delay of about 14 years and therefore, this Court may dismiss this petition on the ground of delay, itself.

5.1 It was submitted that by the impugned order dated 27.07.2007, the petitioner's services were regularized with effect from 16.02.2006 and on completion of five years of services on fixed pay basis, the services of the petitioner came to be regularized and he was placed in the regular pay-scale in the year 2011 and thereafter, for the first time, in the year 2013, the petitioner raised grievance with regard to date of his appointment. Thus, the petitioner remained negligent in challenging the order dated 27.07.2007 for almost 14 years and therefore, this Court may not entertain this petition.

5.2 It was, further, submitted that the order dated 27.07.2007 has already been given full effect long back, Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Wed Apr 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 09 23:31:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19038/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025 undefined whereas, the petitioner raised grievance with regard to the same only in the year 2011, i.e. after once he was placed in the regular pay scale on completion of five years' of service on fixed pay basis and therefore, this Court may dismiss this petition.

5.3 In support of his submissions, learned AGP, Mr. Udhwani, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in the case of 'State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Rajmati Singh', reported in 2022 SCC OnLine 1785, more particularly, the observations made at Paragraphs- 12, 20 and 21, thereof.

5.4 Learned AGP, then, invited the attention of this Court to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 207 of 2011, in the case of 'M.D. Chauhan working as Meter Reader Vs. Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited through Managing Director', Dated:

07.02.2011, wherein also, the petition was filed after the delay of 16 years, from the date of entry in service and therefore, the Division Bench observed that the principle of delay and latches shall operate against the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5.5 By relying on the aforesaid decision, it was reiterated that this petition be dismissed.

6. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and also perused the material on record and as can be seen from Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Wed Apr 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 09 23:31:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19038/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025 undefined the averments made in this petition, I find that it is an undisputed fact that the order dated 27.07.2007, whereby, the petitioner's services were regularized and he was placed in the fixed pay for the period of five years with effect from 16.02.2006. Meaning thereby, the order dated 27.07.2007 was given effect to with retrospective effect, i.e. from 16.02.2006.

Aforesaid order also indicates that the petitioner shall have to work on the monthly fixed pay basis for the period of five years and only on completion of services for five years' satisfactorily, he was to be placed in the regular pay-scale. The representations made by the petitioner to the Respondents indicate that the services of the petitioner came to be regularized in the year 2011 and thereafter, it was only in the year 2013 that, for the first time, the petitioner raised the grievance about the date of regularization of his services and made a request to consider his services with effect from 30.06.2000 and not from 16.02.2006.

6.1 It is true that the petitioner made a few representations to the Respondents between the years 2013 to 2019 to regularize his services with effect from 16.02.2006, but, the fact remains that the petitioner did not made any grievance or raised any dispute at the time of implementation of the order dated 27.07.2007, whereby, his services came to be regularized with effect from 16.02.2006. Further, the petitioner also did not challenge the aforesaid order by initiating appropriate legal proceedings and instead, continued to reap the benefits of regularization of his services with effect from 16.02.2006, i.e. untill the order dated 27.07.2007 was fully Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Wed Apr 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 09 23:31:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19038/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025 undefined given effect to and implemented by the Respondents.

6.2 In above view of the matter, here, it would be relevant to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'State of Uttar Pradesh and Others' (Supra), wherein, at Paragraphs- 12, 20 and 21, the Apex Court has held as under;

"12. In our considered view, the respondent like any vigilant citizen, especially given that she does not belong to economically or socially backward segments of the society, was expected to assert her rights before an appropriate forum within a reasonable time. Repeated representations neither give rise nor revive the cause of action, if it had already arisen in the past. Respondent's difficulties do not end there, given that her services were brought to an end when she was denied to resume her duties in the year 1974. She was, thus, required to seek a declaration of her continuity or have a writ of mandamus issued for her reinstatement. She did not do either. The Information Commission is not a forum to adjudicate service disputes. It was not a forum which either could declare the rights of the respondent or grant any service benefits. The respondent's move before the State Information Commission was thus an exercise in futility. It leaves no room for doubt that the respondent slept over her rights and allowed the grass to grow under her feet for a long duration of over 33 years.

                                                           Page 7 of 11

Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Wed Apr 09 2025                          Downloaded on : Wed Apr 09 23:31:40 IST 2025
                                                                                                              NEUTRAL CITATION




                           C/SCA/19038/2021                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025

                                                                                                              undefined




                                       XXX                         XXX                          XXX

20. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the facts in this case, coupled with the legal principles cited above, we are satisfied that the claim of the respondent is stale, highly belated, time barred, and the same ought not to have been entertained by the Tribunal or the High Court after a span of over three decades.

21. We reiterate that undue sympathy and a perceived liberal approach by a judicial forum can lead to significant adverse consequences. It not only gives rise to illegitimate expectations in the mind of fence sitting employees, but also leads to undue burdens on the public exchequer. Not only this, the indulgence shown by a Court solely on equitable considerations, dehors the law, breeds indiscipline in public services and incorrigible employees start looking for a dividend on the period of their absence or for dereliction of duty. While there is no evidence to suggest that the respondent deliberately absented herself from duty, the facts speak for themselves in that she failed to take any recourse provided under law for more than three decades. We may say at the cost of repetition that the respondent had hardly served as an untrained teacher on temporary basis for a period of 2½ years and in terms of the impugned judgment of the High Court, she has been held entitled to get arrears of pay of more than 40 years, besides all the retiral benefits.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19038/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025 undefined We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court ought not to have drawn adverse inferences against the appellants or put the entire onus on them to prove that the respondent was unjustifiably denied the resumption of duties. The approach of the High Court in this regard is completely erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of law. The impugned Judgment thus cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside."

6.3 From the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court and as reproduced herein above, it becomes clear that a vigilant citizen is expected to approach the concerned forum / Court within the reasonable time for redressal of his / her grievance. In the instant case, the petitioner approached this Court after a delay of about 14 years for redressal of his grievance.

6.3.1 Further, in Paragraph-21 of the aforesaid order, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also cautioned about the possible consequences, if, a petition is considered out of undue sympathy and it has categorically went on to observe that the same shall result into indiscipline within the public services.

6.4 The Division Bench of this Court, in the case of 'M.D. Chauhan working as Meter Reader' (Supra) has observed as under at Paragraphs- 4 and 5 thereof;

"4. We may record that the appellant has accepted the appointment as back as in the year 1978 and for the first Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Wed Apr 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 09 23:31:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19038/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025 undefined time, the dispute, even if it is considered from the date of filing of the petition, has been arisen in the year 1994, roughly after about 16 years from the entry in service. Therefore, principles of delay and laches would operate against the appellant to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Apart from the above, the appellant has voluntarily accepted the conditions at the time when he joined the service as a trainee and also at the time when the regular appointment was offered to him from the date of joining as a regular helper. Now, the appellant cannot be heard to say after 16 years that it was to deprive the appellant of the benefits, he was placed as trainee. Further, the basis of the alleged policy of the discrimination is one award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and another is the office order by the Electricity Board. In the award of the Industrial Tribunal as well as in the office order of the Electricity Board, there is clear recoding of the fact that the regular post was vacant and the appointment as trainee was given on regular basis. There is no material in the present proceedings to show the said position. Therefore, unless and until the complete parity of similarly situated is satisfactorily demonstrated before this Court, the ground of discrimination cannot be maintained. Further, even if one has to go into the said aspect of availability of the permanent post or otherwise, at the relevant point of time, fulfledged fact finding inquiry is required, which cannot be undertaken by this Court while Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Wed Apr 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 09 23:31:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19038/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2025 undefined exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

6.5 Considering the above observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court, when the present petitioner has approached this Court after the gross delay of about 14 years, that too after the aforesaid order is given full effect to, i.e. after availing / reaping the benefits of the order dated 27.07.2007, I do not see any reason to interfere in this petition.

7. Resultantly, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.

Sd./-

(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) UMESH/-