Gujarat High Court
Daniben Lavjibhai Parghi vs State Of Gujarat on 2 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7502/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7502 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
=============================================
DANIBEN LAVJIBHAI PARGHI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR VICKY B MEHTA(5422) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
MS FORUM SUKHADWALA, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 02/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Ms. Forum Sukhadwala waives service of notice of rule for respondent No.1. Learned advocate Mr. H.S.Munshaw waives service of notice of rule for respondent Nos.2 and 3. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
2. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayers :
"(a) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus by holding that the petitioners are eligible and entitled to get family pension and further be pleased to direct the Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:46:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7502/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined respondent no.2 and 3 to grant family pension to the petitioners;
(b) Pending admission and final disposal of the petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents prepare the pension papers of the deceased Lavjibhai and consider the case of petitioners for grant of family pension in accordance with law;"
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Vicky Mehta for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Forum Sukhadwala for respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS :
4. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Mehta would state that despite there is an order of reinstatement awarded by the Labour Court way back in the year 2000 and this Court, in fact, did not disturb the order of award of reinstatement of the husband of the petitioner, who was initially appointed in the year 1985, worked till he died in the year 2017, benefits of family pension denied to the petitioner. So, petitioner being poor lady constrained to file present petition.
4.1 Learned advocate Mr.Mehta would respectfully submit that after reinstatement, when the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 denied to the husband of the petitioner, he constrained to approach this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.14041 of 2016, which came to be allowed by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 02/03/2022, whereby the impugned order dated 21.12.2015 in the said petition came to be quashed and set aside and the Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:46:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7502/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined respondents were directed to confer benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 to husband of petitioner, by counting the entire service of the husband of the petitioner from his initial date of appointment till he worked. It is respectfully submitted that when the aforesaid is the position of law and facts as on date, the action of the respondents in denying family pension to the petitioner, being the wife of the deceased employee, is arbitrary, capricious and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
4.2 Learned advocate Mr.Mehta would respectfully further submit that as per settled legal position of law, when authority illegally deny the benefit of pension then liable to pay interest on arrears amount of pension. It is submitted that as per aforesaid decision, as petitioner is entitled to receive family pension then having denied such benefit, petitioner is entitle to receive interest on delayed payment of family pension.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS :
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw, under instructions of his client, would state that at the time of filing this petition, as there was no such order as cited today by the learned advocate for the petitioner available, at the given point of time, in view of the order dated 21/12/2015 passed by the competent authority of respondents denied benefits to the petitioner. Nonetheless, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw would not be in a position to countenance the stand taken by the respondents while denying the family pension, more Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:46:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7502/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined particularly in view of the aforesaid judgment dated 02/03/2022 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.14041 of 2016.
5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw would only request to this Court that no interest on family pension amount be awarded as there was no deliberate non-denial of such benefit to petitioner by his clients.
6. Whereas, learned AGP Ms.Forum Sukhadwala would submit that as the decision of not allowing the petitioner to receive family pension taken by respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, the State should not be burdened with the interest as no proposal to release family pension was received from the office of respondent Nos.2 and 3 by respondent No.1-State.
ANALYSIS :
7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and after gone through the pleadings and the documentary evidence submitted along with it, it is no more in dispute that the husband of the petitioner was initially appointed as a Daily Wager in the year 1985, having terminated on 28/02/1990, whereby he raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, who allowed such reference by passing an award dated 03/02/2000, whereby the husband of the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with 20% back wages. Such order came to be partly disturbed by this Court when it quashed the 20% back wages granted by the Labour Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:46:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7502/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined Court. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the order of reinstatement was not disturbed.
8. Thereafter, it appears that when the husband of the petitioner was actually reinstated, the respondent authority had initially not granted the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 to him. So, he appears to have preferred a writ petition, being Special Civil Application No.14041 of 2016, which came to be allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide a judgment and order dated 02/03/2022, wherein after observing the facts and the case law, it held thus:
"12. Thus, there is a consistent view taken by the Division Benches, that once the Labour Court orders reinstatement, continuity to such employee cannot be denied merely because the Labour Court has failed to record the expression "continuity of service" and as a sequel thereof, the employee is entitled to the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988. The case of the petitioner stands on batter footing since in his case, the Labour Court has granted continuity of service.
13. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.12.2015 is quashed, to the extent it denies the benefits to the deceased-petitioner by ignoring the period from initial date of appointment till his reinstatement. The respondents are directed to confer the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 by counting his entire service from the initial date of appointment.
14. It is clarified that, such benefits shall be conferred as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P.W.D. Employees Union and Others (supra). The respondents are directed to pay the difference of salary and arrears to the petitioners. Any benefits such as family pension etc., shall also be paid to the petitioners. It is also clarified that, the period from his date of termination till his reinstatement, shall be treated as notional for the purpose of pay fixation, family pension etc. keeping in mind the directions issued by the Labour Court in the award dated 03.02.2000."
(emphasis supplied) Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:46:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7502/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined
9. The judgment and order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid matter is not challenged by the respondents, thus, they are unable to countenance their stand taken in the reply. As such, in view of the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, petitioner, being the wife of late Lavjibhai Bhudarbhai Parghi, is entitled to receive family pension w.e.f. 11/05/2017 as her husband died during the course of service on 10/05/2017. But same is not paid rather denied by respondents, on unsustainable ground in law.
10. Thus, when this Court found that the legitimate right of the petitioner to receive family pension has been wrongfully denied by the respondent authority without any justification, thereby withheld it, they are required to pay the arrears amount of family pension with interest. This Court could have awarded interest from date of actual default of payment of family pension but considering overall facts and circumstance of the case, it directed respondent - State to pay simple interest at the rate of 9% p.a. at least from 01/04/2022 (right of petitioner get crystalized by this Court vide its aforesaid judgement/order dated 02/03/2022 to get family pension) till its realization. [See - PANCHAYAT & RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT & ORS Versus SANTOSH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA reported in 2025 INSC 1142].
11. So far liability of interest to be paid by respondents are concern, I am not able to convince myself with an argument of learned AGP that State should not requires to pay it for Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:46:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7502/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined default of respondent No.2 & 3. According to this Court, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are working as employees of the respondent - State, then considering the principle of vicarious liability, whereby the principal would held liable for the act of its agent, it would desirable that at the first instance, interest amount requires to be paid by the respondent - State, and then if so desire and advice, it is open for respondent - State to recover it from respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Even otherwise, at the end of day, liability to pay pension/family pension would on shoulder of State.
12. Before parting with this judgement, it would apt to observe that this Court experience so far that respondent authority is fully aware about the dictum of law, i.e. whenever the Labour Court passed an order of reinstatement of workmen without mentioning anything about continuity of service, then also, continuity of service requires to be considered thereby benefit of Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 requires to be granted to workmen. Despite such position, every now and then, State authorities are coming with the plea that in the absence of any specific mention about continuity of service by the Labour Court, benefits though available to employees/daily wagers/workmen as per Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988, denied by the State authorities. Ultimately, to get the fruits of Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988, the poor employees are constrained to approach this Court and eventually, after taking the very stand by the respondent authority, having Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:46:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7502/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined consumed the time of this Court, after passing of the order by this Court, benefits pass on to such employees.
13. Thus, considering aforesaid factual situation and so also the experience, as a word of caution, it is hereby directed to respondents including State that in all such matters wherein a similar issue is germane i.e. Non-granting of benefit of G.R. dated 17/10/1988 to workman though reinstated as per Labour Court award but without any observance of continuity of service, respondent authorities should take a positive step to review their own decisions which might have been taken in mistaken belief and come out with a positive stand by giving such benefits of said G.R. dated 17/10/1988. By doing so, precious time of this Court can be saved and ultimately, future litigation can be avoided by everyone including State and pending litigation can get over in no time. If so advice, such pending cases may be settled in Lok-adalat thereby, authority may avoid burden of interest.
13.1 Learned AGP may forward the copy of this Judgement/order to concern highest official of State for its proper and effective implementation and concern department of State may accordingly frame policy and/or take appropriate decision.
CONCLUSION :
14. In view of the foregoing reasons, I pass the following order - directions:
Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:46:55 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7502/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined
(i) The decision of the respondent authority having denied the benefit of family pension to the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. It is hereby held and declared that the petitioner, being the wife of late Lavjibhai Bhudarbhai Parghi, who otherwise eligible to receive all benefits of Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988, is entitled to receive family pension as well, on sad demise of her husband on 10/05/2017.
Accordingly, respondents shall prepare papers of her family pension at the earliest without fail.
(ii) Further, the respondents are hereby directed to calculate the arrears of family pension amount from 11/05/2017 till the date of its calculation - payment. Such calculated arrears of family pension be paid by the respondents to petitioner on or before 28/02/2026.
(iii) As this Court vide its judgment and order dated 02/03/2022 passed in Special Civil Application No.14041 of 2016 held that the husband of the petitioner entitled to receive all benefits of Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 including family pension as well, considering fact that respondents have wrongly withheld benefits of family pension thereafter for quite long time, as aforesaid, respondent - State is directed to pay simple interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on from 01/04/2022 on arrears of family pension till its realization/payment to petitioner.
Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:46:55 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7502/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined
(iv) It goes without saying that after making the aforesaid payment, respondents shall have to pay regularly family pension every month to the petitioner till she survives.
(v) If for any reason, respondents fail to pay the aforesaid amount within the stipulated time as aforesaid, on the aforesaid amount including interest, the petitioner will entitle to receive 9% p.a. interest on such amount from 01/03/2026 till realization. Apart from such entitlement, it is always open for petitioner to file contempt proceeding against erring officials of respondents for non-compliance of any of the aforesaid directions/order.
(vi) So far as payment of interest is concerned, as aforesaid, the respondent State shall have to first pay such amount and then recover it from respondent Nos. 2 and 3, if so advised.
15. In view of the foregoing conclusion, the present writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute, to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J) GAURAV J THAKER Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 03 21:46:55 IST 2025