Gujarat High Court
Bharatkumar Popatlal Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 11 April, 2025
Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7752/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7752 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7796 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
===================================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
✔
===================================================
BHARATKUMAR POPATLAL PATEL & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
===================================================
Appearance:
MS. PRACHI UPADHYAY for MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR. KM ANTANI(6547) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. SIDDHARTH RAMI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
===================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 11/04/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Issue RULE, returnable forthwith. Mr. K.M. Antani, learned advocate waives service of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.2 and Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned Assistant Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 23:08:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7752/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/04/2025 undefined Government Pleader waives service of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 3.
2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, both the Petitions are heard finally.
3. Heard Ms. Prachi Upadhyay, learned advocate for Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, Mr. K.M. Antani, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.2 and Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 3.
4. As the grievance raised by the petitioners in both the petitions are selfsame, the petitions are heard analogously and common order is passed in both the petitions, with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
5. By way of the present petitions, petitioners herein approached this Court being aggrieved by the discriminatory treatment given to the petitioners herein by the respondent authorities of not granting yearly increment for one full year of Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 23:08:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7752/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/04/2025 undefined service rendered by the petitioners for the period from 01.07.2021 to 30.06.2022 (in case of SCA No. 7752 of 2023) and the period from 01.07.2014 to 30.06.2015 (in case of SCA No. 7796 of 2023)
6. The petitioners herein are as such entitled to the yearly increments, for which the petitioners are otherwise eligible, which has resulted in wrong fixation of pension of the petitioners and the recurring financial loss to the petitioners.
6.1. Ms. Prachi Upadhyay, learned advocate for Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein have reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2022. At the time of retirement from service, petitioner no.1 was working as Bench Clerk, Grade-I and petitioner no.2 was working as Havlaldar (SCA No. 7752 of 2023), copy of the office order is duly produced at Annexure-A. Upon retirement of the petitioners from service on 30.06.2022, the petitioners are sanctioned pension, w.e.f. 01.07.2022, such pension payment Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 23:08:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7752/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/04/2025 undefined orders are duly produced at Annexure-B. 6.2. It is the case of the petitioners that, before their retirement from service, the petitioners had rendered one full year of service from 01.07.2021 to 30.06.2022 and are entitled to get the benefit of annual increment for the said period of service. It is submitted that, as per the policy of the Government, the said increment falls due on 01.07.2022.
The petitioners retired on 30.06.2022 and the petitioners were not granted the benefits by the respondent authorities. The present petition is filed on 13.04.2023, after the retirement.
6.3. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Misc. Civil Application (for contempt) No. 257 of 2024 filed in Special Civil application No. 11186 of 2023 and allied matters, wherein, the Hon'ble Division Bench vide common oral order dated 26.03.2025 relied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of C.P. Mundinamani and Ors., wherein, explanatory note is reproduced in the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench.
Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 23:08:26 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7752/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/04/2025 undefined 6.4. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Division Bench has also stated in para-7 of the said order that the issue of one increment, which has been emanated from the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of C.P. Mundinamani and Ors. has been followed by the Court from time to time. The said directions having attained finality, the ratio laid down in the said judgment is to be followed.
7. Mr. K.M. Antani, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.2 is not in a position to controvert the aforesaid position of law, as relied upon by Ms. Upadhyay, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner.
8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, this Court deems it fit to refer to the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Misc. Civil Application (for contempt) No. 257 of 2024 filed in Special Civil Application No. 11186 of 2023, wherein, relevant para-5 to 15 reads thus:
"5. Mr. Virk, learned Government Pleader for the Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 23:08:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7752/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/04/2025 undefined respondent-State has submitted that thereafter the Secretaries of various Departments of the State Government had undertaken exercise in order to implement the aforesaid order. It is submitted that as per his understanding, the pending or disposed cases can be categorized in three categories as observed by the Supreme Court in the order dated 20 th February, 2025. It is also submitted by him that the Supreme Court has also clarified that in case any excess payment has already been paid to the employees including arrears, such amount paid, will not be recovered. Mr. Virk, learned Government Pleader for the respondent - State has tendered the explanatory note as under :
"1. All issues pertaining to one increment have been decided in rem by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India & Anr. Versus M. Siddaraj (Misc. Application Diary No.2400 of 2024 in Civil Appeal No.3933 of 2023).
2. It is respectfully suggested that cases related to 'One Increment' may be categorised in the following three categories:
A. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in KPTCL (Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023) will be given effect to in case of third parties from 11.04.2023; and pension by taking into account one increment will be payable on or after 01.05.2023, with it being clarified that enhanced pension will not be paid for the period prior to 31.04.2023.
B. For cases where:-
I. The judgment has not attained finality,
II. Cases where appeal has been preferred,
III. Cases where appeal - if filed - is entertained
by the appellate Court, the directions in 'b' will not apply.
C. In cases where retired employees have filed writ petitions before this Hon'ble Court and the said writ petitions are pending as on 20.02.2025 (date of SC order) one increment will be payable for a period of 3 years prior to the month in which the writ petition was Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 23:08:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7752/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/04/2025 undefined filed, in terms of newly introduced direction "d" of the SC Order.
The treatment to be given in terms clause "d" will not apply to retired government employees who have filed writ petitions before this Hon'ble Court after the judgment dated 19.05.2023 in M. Siddaraj (Civil Appeal No.3933 of 2023) and for such litigants who have filed writ petition before this Hon'ble Court on and after 19.05.2023 the treatment as envisaged in clause "a" of the SC order would be given."
6.In response to the aforesaid submission, learned advocates appearing for the respective employees have submitted that they have apprehension that the State Government will not extend the benefits as directed by the Supreme Court, hence liberty may be reserved in favour of the employees to file appropriate proceedings in case the respondent - State authorities faulters in implementing the directions of this Court and also in any cases consequential recovery is made from such employees in whose favour the judgments of this Court are already implemented and they are already extended the benefit of one increment.
6.1 Learned advocates appearing for the employees have further urged that the direction issued by the Supreme Court may be further clarified so that the same may not lead to an anomalous situation leading to further litigation.
7.The issue of one increment, which emanated from the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of C.P. Mundinamani and Ors. (supra) has been followed by this Court in various judgments and orders either passed by the learned Single Judges or by the Division Benches. It appears that thereafter Misc. Civil Application for review or clarification was filed before the Supreme Court and initially the Supreme Court, in the order dated 6 th September, 2024, clarified the directions issued in the said judgment of C.P. Mundinamani and Ors. (supra) and four directions were incorporated by the Supreme Court for extending the benefit of one increment.
8.Accordingly, numerous petitions, contempt applications and Letters Patent Appeals were disposed of in line of the order dated 6th September, 2024. However, the Supreme Court finally, in the order dated 20th February, 2025, has further clarified the order Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 23:08:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7752/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/04/2025 undefined dated 6th September, 2024. An attempt is made by the learned Government Pleader and the learned advocates appearing for the employees to further clarify the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned orders. The learned advocates appearing for the employees have raised an apprehension that the State will not pay the benefit of one increment as per the orders passed by the Apex Court.
9.We cannot either substitute or further issue any clarificatory directions to the order dated 20th February, 2025 issued by the Supreme Court. We can also neither supplement nor supplant. The State Government cannot implement the directions of the Supreme Court by its own understanding either putting a new clause or fresh explanation to the order dated 20 th February, 2025. The order passed by the Supreme Court dated 20 th February, 2025 is self-explanatory, and we do not find that any further directions are required to be issued, except that the State Government shall follow the directions issued by the Supreme Court in letter and spirit. The Supreme Court has already clarified that in case any excess payment has already been made to the employees, such amount paid, will not be recovered. Thus, it is not open for the State Government or the Statutory Bodies to affect any recovery from the employees who have been extended the benefit of one increment as directed by this Court in various judgments in case of each of the employees except in those cases where the employees are not entitled as per law.
10. We can only further clarify that in case the respondent State authorities falter in implementing the directions issued by the Supreme Court and in case the benefit of one increment, which is yet to be paid to the number of employees of the State of Gujarat, is not paid as directed by the Apex Court, and they are aggrieved by such action, either of recovery or fixation of increment, it will be open for them to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum.
11. We further direct that in case the benefit of one increment or arrears remains unpaid to the employees, the State Government shall extend such benefits to them within a period of four months.
12. It is also noticed by us that various matters are filed by the employees through their respective Union/ Associations/ Mandals. In such matters, such Unions/Associations/Mandals shall Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 23:08:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7752/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/04/2025 undefined instruct all its individual members to file a representation before their parent departments giving all their service details. After such details are received, the State Government /Department shall extend the benefit of one increment, as directed by the Supreme Court in the order dated 20th February, 2025.
13. At this stage, Mr. Virk, learned Government Pleader has submitted that there are more than 32,000 applications, which are required to be scrutinized, hence it is urged by him that the limitation of four months, as fixed by this Court, may further be extended to six months. The request is acceded to. We direct all the departments of the State Government to verify the cases of each of the individuals and upon such verification, the benefit/arrears of increment shall be extended within a period of six months.
14. It is further clarified that the retired employees, who were serving and have retired from the Statutory bodies having the pension scheme, shall only be entitled to the benefit of one increment.
15. Thus, all the proceedings are disposed of in terms of the order dated 20 th February, 2025 passed by the Supreme Court."
9. In light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and upon harmonious reading with the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Misc. Civil Application (for contempt) No. 257 of 2024 filed in Special Civil Application No. 11186 of 2023, it emerges that the case of the petitioners herein is governed by the directions issued in the aforesaid order dated 26.03.2025, as the said issue of one increment has attained finality.
Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 23:08:26 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7752/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/04/2025 undefined
10. The respondent authorities to act accordingly and needful be done within a period of three months from the receipt of the copy of the order.
Both the Petitions stand ALLOWED accordingly. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) Pradhyuman Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 23:08:26 IST 2025