Gujarat High Court
Saiyad Hasanmiya Alimiya vs Office Of Executive Engineer on 1 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1991/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1991 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
SAIYAD HASANMIYA ALIMIYA
Versus
OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS.DIXA PANDYA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 01/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Ms.Dixa Pandya waives notice of Rule on behalf of State.
2. This petition is filed for the following reliefs:-
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased call for record and proceedings of Gratuity Appeal Application No. 23 of 2019 and Gratuity Application No. 40 of 2018 from the controlling officer, and further be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 11.04.2019 and 17.09.2020 passed by controlling officer, Surendranagar and Appellate authority, Rajkot, in Gratuity Application No. 40 of 2018 and Gratuity Appeal Application No. 23 of 2019 (at ANNEXURE-A);
Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:05:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1991/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined (B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present application, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay further operation, implementation and execution of impugned order dated 1.04.2019 and 07.09.2020 passed by controlling officer, Surendranagar and Appellate authority, Rajkot, in Gratuity Application No. 40 of 2018 and Gratuity Appeal Application No.23 of 2019 (at ANNEXURE-A);
(C) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case;"
3. The gist of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as a peon in the office of the Deputy Executive Engineer, Surendranagar, on 23.05.1980 and was released from the job on 21.11.2007. The petitioner filed an application under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, being Gratuity Application No. 40 of 2018, which was rejected on the ground that the petitioner's past service was forfeited by the employer after initiating an inquiry, as the petitioner remained absent unauthorizedly for a period of more than two years. The order passed by the learned Controlling Authority was challenged before the learned Appellate Authority in Gratuity Appeal No. 32 of 2019, which was also rejected vide order dated 17.09.2020, and the same is the subject matter of the challenge Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:05:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1991/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Ms.Kirti.S.Pathak for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms.Dixa Pandya for the State.
5. Learned advocate Ms. Pathak submits that the petitioner had served the State for more than 28 years. However, the petitioner has not been paid the gratuity amount due. Both the learned Authorities have erred in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside, and the petition is required to be allowed.
6. On the other hand, learned AGP Ms. Pandya submits that the past service of the petitioner was forfeited under Rule 32 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002. This forfeiture was challenged before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 17423 of 2011, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 04.07.2012. The said order was confirmed by the Division Bench in intra-court appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No. 1512 of 2012. Learned AGP Ms. Pandya further submits that since the forfeiture of past service has attained finality, the learned Controlling Authority Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:05:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1991/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined as well as the learned Appellate Authority have not committed any error in rejecting the application and the appeal filed by the present petitioner. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, and upon perusal of the record, it emerges that the petitioner had earlier filed Special Civil Application No. 17423 of 2011 challenging the orders dated 14.09.2011 and 21.11.2007 passed by the respondent-authorities, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service on the ground of unauthorized absenteeism. The said petition was dismissed vide order dated 04.07.2012, and the dismissal was affirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 12 of 2012, wherein it was held that the petitioner had left the country without prior permission of the department and had remained abroad for more than one year. After the conclusion of the departmental inquiry, and upon affording due opportunity to the petitioner, a decision was taken to dismiss him from service, which has since attained finality. It is necessary to refer to Rule 32 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, which is Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:05:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1991/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined reproduced hereinbelow:-
"32. Forfeiture of service on dismissal or removal : Dismissal of a Government employee from a service or post entails forfeiture of his past service. Removal of a Government employee from service or post entails forfeiture of his past service unless specific entries to the contrary are made in the service records."
7.1. On referring the above rule, it emerges that the petition is filed without disclosing the said material fact and without annexing the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 17423 of 2011 as well as in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1512 of 2012.
8. In the aforesaid background, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to the claimed benefits, as the order of dismissal has attained finality and the respondent-authority has forfeited his past service. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be deemed to have served continuously for a period of 28 years. In view of the above, the present petition fails and deserves to be dismissed.
9. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed.
10. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:05:02 IST 2025