Gujarat High Court
Vijaykumar Govindlal Modi vs State Of Gujarat on 5 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/18695/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18695 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
VIJAYKUMAR GOVINDLAL MODI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. HARDIK J JANI(6497) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. AKASH K. CHHAYA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
Date : 05/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. On 20.05.1999, the petitioner was appointed on the post of District Education Officer (Class-I). The terms of the appointment was that he was to be on probation for a period of two years. However, on completion of two years, no order of confirmation was passed.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner continued in service until he attained age of superannuation in the year 2017 Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:47:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18695/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined and he was accordingly permitted to retired on 31.05.2018.
3. The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the Respondent No. 1 to consider the date of completion of probation as 20.05.2001 instead of 21.05.2003 and accordingly, grant him the consequential financial benefits i.e. the grant of increments for the period from 2001 to 2003. It is the case of the State that because there were some irregularities in the orders of transfer passed by the petitioner in the year 2000 when he was working in Surendranagar from 14.12.2000 to 17.02.2002 he had passed certain irregular transfer orders and therefore, an inquiry had been initiated against him and he was infact imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment and therefore, the deemed date of confirmation i.e. from the year 2003 could not be found fault with.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that as against the order imposing a punishment of withholding of increment for passing incorrect orders of transfer, the petitioner has preferred SCA No. 16041/2017 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 19.04.2018 had quashed the order of punishment imposed against the petitioner on 12.06.2012 and this Court has also directed the release of increments with arrears of pay within a period of 4 weeks and as a consequences, the holding of the department inquiry will have to be ignored.
5. Learned AGP also points out that the question of the date of confirmation of the petitioner was once again considered Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:47:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18695/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined in the year 2018 and by order dated 04.08.2018, the State Government took the view that there was no need to change the date of confirmation from 2001 and it was decided to maintain the date of confirmation as 20.05.2003.
6. As already stated above, the petitioner was appointed on 21.05.1999 and the appointment was subjected to the condition that he would be on probation for a period of two years. If the petitioner was subjected to an inquiry during his period of probation and was imposed a punishment, which was subsequently quashed by this Court in SCA No. 16041/2017, the State Government would not be right in contenting that the date of confirmation can be extended beyond the period of two years from 21.05.1999.
7. It is also to be stated here that the petitioner has infact completed his entire service tenure and has also retired in the year 2018. It is therefore, clear that after the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation, the question of holding that the petitioner was eligible to be confirmed only from the year 2003 cannot be sustained.
8. As already narrated above, the reason for postponing the order of confirmation was due to the pendency of the inquiry. If the inquiry was held to be illegal by this Court in SCA No. 16041/2017, the postponement of deemed date of confirmation from 2001 to 2003 cannot be upheld.
9. Consequently, it is held that the petitioner is deemed to Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:47:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18695/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined have been confirmed on the expiry of two years from 21.05.1999 i.e. with effect from 21.05.2001. As a consequence, all monetary benefit such as payment of increments, shall be computed from the year 2001 and they shall be made over to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
10. If, any benefits are computed and paid over to the petitioner on the basis that he was confirmed in the year 2003, the same shall be taken into account. It is however made clear that the petitioner be entitled for the benefit on the assumption that he is deemed to have been confirmed on 21.05.2001.
11. Direct service is permitted. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(NSSG,J) Mehul Desai Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:47:50 IST 2025