Gujarat High Court
Khodabhai Hathibhai Khant vs The Director Of Pension And Provident ... on 5 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1421/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 22/07/2025
Pronounced On : 05/08/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1421 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1421 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5078 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4235 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5934 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9093 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9562 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4094 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22683 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 86 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4694 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8964 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11889 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13573 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== KHODABHAI HATHIBHAI KHANT AND OTHERS Versus THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION AND PROVIDENT FUND & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance:
MR GM AMIN, ADVOCATE for the Petitioners MR PREMAL JOSHI, MS HARSHAL N PANDYA, MR VISHRUT JANI, MR MEHUL RATHOD, MR HS MUNSHAW, MS ARCHANA AMIN, MR DG CHAUHAN, MR PRANAV SHAH for rest of the Respondents Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:57:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1421/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined MR HENIL M SHAH, MR PARTH PATEL, MS SURBHI BHATI, MR JEET JOTANGIYA, MS DHARITRI PANCHOLI, AGPs for the State Authorities ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT COMMON CAV JUDGMENT 1.1 Since the issue involved in this group of petitions is identical, the averments made as well as the submissions canvassed by the learned advocates for the respective parties are also identical, with consent of the learned advocates, all these matters are heard and decided by this Court together.
1.2 This group of petitions under Article 2226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners seeking direction to the respondent authorities against the recovery of the amount which was again paid by calculating the pension and other retiral dues.
2. For the sake of convenience, as Special Civil Application No.1421 of 2019 is argued by the learned advocates, the same is taken as lead matter, therefore, the facts of that matter are epitomized as under.
2.1 The petitioner initially joined the services as Oilmen / Tubewell Operators in Ahmedabad District Panchayat.
Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:57:05 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1421/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined 2.2 The services were transferred to the newly formatted Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation on 07.08.1978.
2.3 The Government has passed a Resolution dated 14.10.1981 inviting options from all the employees as to whether they wanted to be repatriated to parent department or to continue with Corporation by the said resolution and pursuant to the said resolution, all the employees were treated to be the employees of the parent department till 13.12.1981. Therefore, the petitioners were treated to be the employees of the Ahmedabad District Panchayat for the period from 1972 to 13.12.1981 only and thereafter they were treated to be the employees of the Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation.
2.4 The petitioners retired from the Corporation between the years 2005-2007.
2.5 The Corporation does not have pension scheme. 2.6 Therefore upon retirement, they were granted the retiral dues as per Contributory Provident Fund scheme, gratuity, leave encashment, etc., for the period they served with the Corporation i.e. from 07.08.1978 till 31.05.2006. The amount of gratuity was paid by the Corporation for the Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:57:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1421/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined period from 1978 to 2006.
2.7 After about 9 years from the retirement, the petitioner and other similarly situated persons, have approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.10476 of 2015 seeking grant of pension, which was allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. 2.8 After that order, the petitioners became entitled for the pension and other retirement dues from the State Government for duration of 01.11.1972 till 13.12.1981. 2.9 Therefore, for the period of which they already received gratuity from the Corporation, again ordered to be granted from the Panchayat. For which gratuity is already granted for the period from 07.08.1978 to 13.12.1981. 2.10 It is the said amount which is paid by the Corporation as well as by the Panchayat to the petitioners, which is recovered from them, for which the petitioners have approached this Court by way of these petitions.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. G. M. Amin for the petitioners and Mr.Joshi, Ms.Pandya, Mr.Jani, Mr.Munshaw, Mr.Rathod, Mr.Shah, Mr.Chauhan, Ms.Amin, learned advocates for the respective respondents. Rule returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned advocates, Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:57:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1421/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined all these matters are taken up for hearing and final disposal. 4.1 Learned advocate Mr.G.M. Amin for the petitioners submitted that recovery cannot be made from the arrears of pension and since the Rule does not permit recovery, therefore, they have exercised pressure on the petitioners to recover the amount of grauity and CPF which is totally uncalled for. He has further submitted that the petitioners have actually worked with the Corporation and the date mentioned in the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court is notional date for counting length of qualifying service and it has nothing to do with the actual working in the Ahmedabad District Panchayat, therefore, stand taken by the Corporation to recover gratuity is totally uncalled for. He has further submitted that as such, the petitioners were transferred to the Corporation in the year 1978, however they were working from that date onwards till they retired. The case of the Corporation is that the Coordinate Bench of this Court has fixed the date of retirement is 13.12.1981 and therefore, the Corporation is liable to pay gratuity from 07.06.1978 onwards and not from 08.07.1981 and therefore, there is a gap for the period from 1978 to 1981, therefore, the Corporation has ordered to recover the amount of gratuity from the arrears of pension. The petitioners has further submitted that the date fixed by this Court is a Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:57:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1421/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined notional date for counting length of qualifying service of the petitioners and as such, the petitioners have served with the Corporation since 1978 and therefore, the Corporation is liable to pay gratuity from 1978 till retirement and therefore, the impugned action of the respondent authorities of recovering amount with interest is illegal. He has also submitted that the impugned action of the respondent authorities of recovering provident fund from the areas of pension of the petitioners is illegal and recovering the amount from the petitioners is violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.
4.2 He has further submitted that in view of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, the petitioners are entitled to get gratuity right from date of his joining of service till his retirement. He has submitted that this Court while delivering the judgment had in clear terms stated that the services rendered in the parent department is counted for the purpose of pension. He has further submitted that the petitioners are also entitled to interest on pension as it is admissible under the rules and government circulars. He has submitted that it is the duty of the department to send proposal of interest to the Director of Pension and Provident Fund, which the department has not done. He has submitted that this Court has granted interest to one Narubha Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:57:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1421/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined Mohabbatsinh Zala. He has barely submitted that the Corporation has no pension scheme. He has submitted that the recovery made by the Corporation is required to be refunded with interest to the petitioners. 4.3 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the following decisions.
(i) Special Civil Application No.16511 of 2017 - Gulabji Kasturji Borana
(ii) (2015) 4 SCC 334 - State of Punjab versus Rafiq Masih
(iii) Special Civil Application No.16188 of 2011 -
Mathurbhai Karshanbhai Galtharia versus State of Gujarat
(iv) Special Civil Application No.6138 of 2006 - S.K. Pandya versus State of Gujarat
(v) 2016 (0) AIJEL - HC 237098 - Pravinbhai Kantilal Ganatra versus State of Gujarat
(vi) (2009) 3 SCC 475 - Syed Abdul Quadir versus State of Bihar
(vii) 2024 (0) AIJEL - SC 73884 - Jagdish Prasad Singh versus State of Bihar
(viii) 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536 - Thomas Daniel versus State of Kerala
(ix) Special Civil Application No.6057 of 2015 - Ajitbhai Vasanjibhai Patel versus District Primary Education Officer
(x) Special Civil Application No.16351 of 2014 - Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:57:05 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1421/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined Ranjanben Dolatrai Desai versus Taluka Development Officer
(xi) (2014) 8 SCC 894 - D.D. Tewari versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited 4.4 He has submitted that these petitions may be allowed.
5.1 Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate Mr.Vishrut Jani, learned advocate Mr. Abhijeet Rathod for learned advocate Mr.Mehul Rathod, learned advocate Ms.Archana Amin for the respective respondents have vehemently opposed these petitions. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi has drawn the attention of this Court towards the affidavit in reply filed by the Panchayat and has submitted that and has submitted that after the retirement, the petitioners were granted retiral dues as per the CPF scheme, gratuity, leave encashment, etc., for the period they served with the Corporation i.e. from 1978 till the date of retirement i.e. 2005-2006. He has further submitted that accordingly, the petitioners were paid gratuity from 1978 to 2006 by the Corporation. He has also submitted that after the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioners became entitled for the pension and other retirement dues from the State for duration of 01.11.1972 till 13.12.1981, now for the period of which they already received Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:57:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1421/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined gratuity from the Corporation again ordered to be granted from the Panchayat; the duration for which gratuity is already granted i.e. 07.08.1978 to 13.12.1981 has to be adjusted. He has further submitted that the concerned Panchayat were directed by the State Government to adjust the amount in consultation with the Corporation and therefore, the amount in question was recovered from the petitioners. He has submitted that the petitioners have approached this Court earlier after almost 9 years of delay. 5.2 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon Rule 19 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 and has submitted that double amount which has been paid to the petitioners for the duration i.e. 07.08.1978 to 13.12.1981 by the Corporation as well as by the Panchayat and therefore, out of which, one has to be adjusted and the authorities have rightly recovered the amount from the petitioners.
5.3 He has submitted that these petitions may be dismissed.
6. Learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya for the Corporation has also vehemently opposed these petitions. She has drawn the attention of this Court towards the affidavit in reply filed by the Corporation. She has adopted that Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:57:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1421/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined submissions made by the learned advocate Mr.Premal Joshi. She has submitted that the petitioners have approached this Court earlier that too after almost 9 years of delay. She has also submitted that double amount which has been paid to the petitioners for the duration i.e. 07.08.1978 to 13.12.1981 by the Corporation as well as by the Panchayat and therefore, out of which, one has to be adjusted and the authorities have rightly recovered the amount from the petitioners. She has submitted that these petitions may be dismissed.
7. Learned AGPs Ms.Surbhi Bhati, Mr.Henil Shah, Mr.Parth Patel, Mr. Jeet Jotangiya, Ms. Dharitri Pancholi for the State have adopted the submissions canvassed by the learner advocates for the Corporation/Panchayat. They have also vehemently opposed these petitions. They have submitted that it is an undisputed fact that the Corporation has no pension scheme; and that the petitioners were the employees of the State Government till 13.12.1981 and thereafter, by the resolution, they were the employees of the Corporation; and that the petitioners have not rendered qualifying service with the State Government earlier; and that the petitioners have approached this Court after 9 years of delay for their pensionary benefits; and that this Court has allowed those petitions and granted the pensionary benefits to the Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:57:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1421/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined petitioners and directed the respondent authorities to consider their earlier service for the purpose of pension only; and that the State Government has, after the said direction, considered their services as pensionable service and accordingly paid the retiral dues; and that these petitioners have retired from the service during the year 2005 to 2007; and that pursuant to the direction of this Court, the Corporation has paid the retiral dues as per the existing scheme of the CPF and accordingly, gratuity, leave encashment and other benefits were granted to the petitioners; and that the Panchayat has also considered the case of the petitioners for retirement dues including the pension and paid the all retiral dues to the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners are in receipt of the double payment, one is from the Corporation and another is from the Panchayat / State for the period from 1978 to 1981; and that one of the dues has to be recovered by the respondent authorities from the petitioners and therefore the Corporation has adjusted the one amount accordingly. They have submitted that these petitions may be dismissed. 8.1 I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have perused the documents available on record. From the record as well as from the facts noted above, it transpires that the petitioners have joined the services with the Ahmedabad Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:57:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1421/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined District Panchayat as Oilment / Tubewell Operators in the year 1972. Upon formation of Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation, the petitioners were transferred to the Corporation on 07.08.1978. Thereafter, as per resolution of the Government dated 14.10.1981, all the employees were treated to be the employees of the parent department till 13.12.1981, that means after that date, all the employees are treated to be the employees of the Corporation admittedly. The Corporation does not have pension scheme, which is known to the petitioners.
8.2 The petitioners have retired from the service of the Corporation during the year 2005 to 2007. The Corporation has paid the retiral dues as per the CPF scheme, gratuity, leave encashment, etc., for the period they served with the Corporation i.e. from 07.08.1978 till their retirement.
8.3 After about almost 9 years of delay, the petitioners have approached this Court for grant of pension, which was allowed by this Court and thereby directed the respondent authorities to consider their earlier service for the purpose of pension only and accordingly, paid the retiral benefits. Now, for the period of which the petitioners have already received gratuity from the Corporation after their retirement, as per the order of this Court, they were granted Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:57:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1421/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined the same benefits i.e. retiral benefits from the Panchayat / State. The duration for which gratuity is already granted i.e. 07.08.1978 to 13.12.1981 is again paid to the petitioners due to non-coordination between the Panchayat / State and the Corporation. Thus, the petitioners were paid same retiral benefits by the Corporation as well as by the Panchayat also and more particularly, for the period from 1978 to 1981. Thereafter, the Panchayat was directed by the State to adjust the said amount in consultation with the Corporation and the said double amount was recovered by the Corporation from the petitioner accordingly.
8.4 In this background, this Court finds that the only question for determination before this Court would be that, the amount which is paid again to the petitioners for the period from 07.08.1978 to 13.12.1981, which is recovered by the respondent authorities, be refunded to the petitioners or not ?
8.5 It is a matter of record that the Corporation has paid all the retiral dues to the petitioners as per their existing scheme i.e. CPF, gratuity leave encashment, etc., after the retirement, which is an undisputed fact. 8.6 It is also a matter of record that as per the order of this Court, the State has considered the case of the Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:57:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1421/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined petitioners for pension and accordingly, paid them pension and other retiral benefits, which is also an undisputed fact. 8.7 It is also a matter of record that the retiral dues are paid to the petitioners by the Corporation as well as by the State though as per the order of this Court for the period from 07.08.1978 to 13.12.1981 and hence, for the said period, the petitioners are paid the retiral dues twice, which is also an undisputed fact.
8.8 Therefore, the Panchayat was directed by the State Government to adjust the amount in consultation with the Corporation and accordingly, whichever double amount has been paid by the authorities to the petitioners has to be recovered and is recovered from the petitioners accordingly by the respondent authorities. It is this amount which is demanded by the petitioners back with interest. 8.9 At this stage, Rule 19 of the Gujarat Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2002 needs to be referred to, which is as under.
"19. Limitation on number of pensions -
1. A Government employee shall not earn two pensions in the same service or post at the same time or for the same continuous service.
2. A Government employee who has retired Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:57:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1421/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined on a superannuation pension or retiring pension and subsequently reemployed shall not be entitled you are separate pension or gratuity or the period of his re-employment."
8.10 In view of above, no person can claim double benefits. Additionally, it is not a case of recovery but merely of adjustment by the respondent authorities, which the respondent authorities have rightly done in limpid way. As per the order of this Court, the State / Panchayat has granted pension and other retiral benefits and the same has been extended to the petitioners and they are enjoying its fruits and at the same time, the payment of CPF made by the Corporation at the time of their retirement i.e. in the years of 2005 to 2007 as there is no pension scheme available with the Corporation and they are the employees of the Corporation, they were enjoying the said fruits also. It is noted that at that time, there is no order of this Court as the petitioner have approached this Court after delay of about 9 years which itself is recondite aspect and the Corporation has paid the retiral dues to the petitioners soon after their retirement i.e. in the years 2005 to 2007. Under the circumstances, the action of the respondent authorities for recovering the one amount is just and legal and this Court does not warrant any interference in it. Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:57:05 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1421/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined 8.11 At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Committee for Protection of Rights of ONGC Employees versus Oil and Natural Gas Commission through its Chairman reported in 1990 (0) AIJEL-SC 6785 = (1990) 2 SCC 472, more particularly paras : 1, 9 and 15 thereof, which read as under.
"1. The only question which arises for consideration in this writ petition, filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution, is whether persons who were employed in temporary capacity with the Oil & Natural Gas Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission'), when it was being run as a Department of the Government of India prior to the enactment of the Oil & Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ONGC Act) and who were subsequently absorbed in the Commission, as established under the said Act, are entitled to pension, in addition to the Provident Fund benefits to which they are entitled under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (hereinafter referred to as the Provident Fund Act).
9. In the present case, the petitioners were employed on temporary basis at the time when Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:57:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1421/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined the Commission was established as a statutory body under the ONGC Act and on that date they were not entitled to claim pension because under the relevant Rules pension was not payable to a person employed on temporary basis. The petitioners, therefore, cannot claim that on the date of their becoming the employees of the Commission established under the ONGC Act in 1959, they had a right to pension which has been protected under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 13 and Clause (2) of Regulation 3 of the Regulations. The petitioners cannot also claim protection of the aforesaid provisions on the basis that right to receive pension was part of their condition of service on the date of their becoming the employees of the Commission under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 13 of the ONGC Act, in as much as under
the relevant service rules applicable to them, they could either claim pension or the benefit of the Contributory Provident Fund and they could not avail both the benefits. Since the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the Contributory Provident Fund under the Provident Fund Act and the Provident Fund Scheme and have availed the, said benefit for the past 28 years, they should be taken to have opted for said benefit and they cannot invoke the service rules with regard to pension and claim the right to receive pension as part of their conditions of service. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:57:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1421/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined Shri Ramamurthi, based on the provisions of sub- sec. (1) of Section 13 of the ONGC Act and Clause (2) of Regulation 3 of the Regulations, that the petitioners are entitled to claim pension in addition to the provident fund payable to them under the Provident Fund Act and the Provident Fund Scheme.
15. For the reasons mentioned above, it must be held that the persons who were employed in temporary capacity with the Commission when it was being run as a Department of the Government of India prior to the enactment of the ONGC Act and who were subsequently absorbed in the Commission, as established under the said Act, are not entitled to pension in addition to the Provident Fund benefits to which they are entitled under the provisions of the Provident Fund Act. The writ petition, therefore, falls and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs."
8.12 There cannot be any dispute with regard to the law enunciated in the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this Court relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioners, however, it cannot be helpful to the petitioners any further in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. The present case does not fall within the purview of these decisions with such facts.Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:57:05 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1421/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined
9. For the reasons recorded above, these petitions need to be dismissed and are dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated. In view of this, civil application would not survive and is disposed of accordingly.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) M.H. DAVE Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:57:05 IST 2025