Gujarat High Court
Rajendra Ramnikbhai Pandya vs Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation on 8 December, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1272/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1272 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11765 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1272 of 2025
==========================================================
RAJENDRA RAMNIKBHAI PANDYA
Versus
BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
ADITI S RAOL(8128) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 08/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for the respondent.
2. By this appeal under clause 15 of the Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 15 20:32:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1272/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025 undefined Letters Patent Act, the appellant-original petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 26.09.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.11765 of 2017.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Sub-Auditor on ad-hoc basis in the Audit department of the respondent Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and was made permanent with effect from 01.04.1996.
4. The appellant became Senior Auditor by promotion on 01.08.1996 and by order dated 18.01.1997, the appellant was promoted to the next higher post of Senior Auditor in the pay scale of 5500-9000 with retrospective effect from 01.08.1996. Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 15 20:32:33 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1272/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025 undefined
5. In terms of office order dated 19.02.2007, the respondent Corporation considered the case of the appellant for grant of pay scale of the next promotional post and accordingly, the appellant was granted pay scale of the post of Deputy Chief Auditor of Rs.8000-13500 with effect from 01.08.2005 on his completing 9 years of service on the post of Senior Auditor.
6. It is the case of the appellant that after more than three years after the appellant was given the benefit of the higher pay scale of the next promotional post in lieu of promotion and after fixation of pay under the 6th Pay Central Pay Commission, the respondent Corporation passed an order dated 28.10.2010 directing the employees whose pay scale was upgraded Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 15 20:32:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1272/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025 undefined to Rs.8000-13500 was required to be corrected and that these employees would be entitled to higher pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 and also directed recovery of excess payment made from the date of fixation of pay.
7. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent Corporation without issuing notice or affording opportunity of hearing to the appellant, recovered the alleged excess amount of Rs.1,39,000/- in terms of office order dated 28.10.2010.
8. Special Civil Application No.14370 of 2011 came to be filed by similarly situated employees wherein this Court vide judgment dated 16.08.2016 held that Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 15 20:32:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1272/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025 undefined envisages grant of pay scale of next promotional post of Deputy Chief Auditor of Rs.8000-13500 to a person stagnating on the post of Senior Auditor for a specific period.
9. The case of the appellant therefore, being identical, preferred Special Civil Application No.11765 of 2017 which came to be dismissed by impugned judgment by the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay and laches and also on merits holding that the interpretation of the respondent Corporation of the Government Resolution was justified.
10. The issue involved in this matter is no more res integra in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 15 20:32:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1272/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025 undefined Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak versus Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation reported in (2022) 18 SCC 144, wherein in identical situation, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"15. We are also inclined to grant interest to the appellants on the arrears at the rate of 7% per annum, which would be payable with effect from 1st September 2017. We have fixed the said date for grant of interest as the respondent- Corporation has accepted the interpretation of the Scheme rendered on 16th August 2016 in the Writ Petition preferred by Mukeshbhai Jaswantrai Joshi. Normally, and as a model employer, on accepting the said decision, the respondent-Corporation should have uniformly applied and granted the benefit to all its similarly situated employees affected by the order dated 28th October 2010. This would have avoided unnecessary litigation before the courts, as was held in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others, (2015) 1 SCC 347:
"22.1. The normal rule is that Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 15 20:32:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1272/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025 undefined when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 15 20:32:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1272/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025 undefined the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur when the subject-matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma v. Union of India). On the other hand, if the judgment of the court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 15 20:32:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1272/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025 undefined the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence."
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the prayer of the appellants that they should be given arrears right from 2010 has to be rejected. We also reject the prayer of the appellants that they should be refunded the entire amount which had been collected by the respondent-Corporation in terms of the order dated 28th October 2010.
17. Recording the aforesaid, we partly allow the present appeals with a direction that the appellants would be entitled to arrears in the pre-revised pay-scale of Rs.5,000- 8,000/- for three years prior to the date of filing of the Writ Petitions along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum with effect from 1st September 2017. The arrears, with interest, would be paid within a period of four months from the date of pronouncement of this judgment. A computation sheet/statement of accounts on the basis of which payment is made by the respondent- Corporation shall be furnished to the appellants. The impugned judgment is, accordingly, partly set aside and the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants would be treated Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 15 20:32:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1272/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025 undefined as allowed in the aforesaid terms. There would be no order as to costs."
11. In view of above dictum of law, the appeal is required to be allowed partly. Insofar as the prayer of the appellant that he should be given arrears, the same cannot be granted beyond three years from filing of the petition. In view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak(supra), the prayer of the appellant that he should be refunded the entire amount which is collected by the respondent pursuant to the impugned order is required to be rejected.
12. The respondents are directed to pay the arrears in pre-revised pay-scale 5500- 9000 for three years prior to the date of Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 15 20:32:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1272/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2025 undefined filing of the petition along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum with effect from 01.09.2017. The arrears, with interest, shall be paid within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. The computation sheet/statement of accounts on the basis of which payment is made by the respondent Corporation shall be furnished to the appellant.
13. Appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) (L. S. PIRZADA, J) RAGHUNATH R NAIR Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 15 20:32:33 IST 2025