Gujarat High Court
Tarmohmad Alarakha Baloch vs H C Chauhan , Superintending Engineer on 10 February, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/2026/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT) NO. 2026 of
2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 648 of 2023
=============================================
TARMOHMAD ALARAKHA BALOCH
Versus
H C CHAUHAN , SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR MUKESH H RATHOD(2432) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS VRUNDA SHAH, AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2,3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 10/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present contempt application has been filed seeking initiation of contempt proceedings under the provisions of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willing and deliberate disobedience of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.08.2023 passed in the captioned Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Mukesh H. Rathod, appearing for the applicant has submitted that after the directions were issued by this Division Bench for extending the benefit arising from the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 from the date of the reinstatement i.e. from 04.02.2013, the respondent authorities have passed the order dated 25.04.2023 counting his five years services of each year in which the applicant-original workman has completed 240 days. It is submitted that there is an error in passing the order dated 25.04.2023 since from the Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Tue Feb 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 11 22:34:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/2026/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2025 undefined year 2013, if the five years are added, the same would come to 2018 and not 2021. Thus, it is urged that the respondents are required to consider the intervening period for extending the benefits arising from the Resolution dated 17.10.1988.
3. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that as per the policy of the State Government introduced by the Resolution dated 17.10.1988, only those years, in which the daily wager has completed 240 days, are required to be considered and accordingly, after considering the same, the applicant has been extended benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and his pay has been fixed.
4. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
5. The Coordinate Bench vide order dated 21.08.2023 passed in the captioned Letters Patent Appeal has issued the following directions, which read as under :-
"6.2 Having considered the controversy and assessing the total facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that the benefits should be extended to the workman available under Resolution dated 17.10.1988 from the date of his reinstatement that is from 4.2.2013.
6.3 With the above clarification and directions to the respondents to grant the benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the workman as per the judgment and order of learned single Judge from the aforesaid date of reinstatement that is 4.2.2013, the present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed."
Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Tue Feb 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 11 22:34:33 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/2026/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2025 undefined
6. After the aforesaid directions were issued, the respondent authorities have passed the order dated 25.04.2023 and further order on 16.02.2024 fixing pay-scale of the applicant, who was daily wager.
7. The respondents have as per their reading of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 have conferred the benefit from 31.05.2021, after counting his appointment date as 17.06.2013, the respondents have excluded those years in which the applicant workman has not completed 240 days of working.
8. Thus, while examining the present contempt application, we cannot go with the calculation of number days, in which, the applicant-workman has been engaged by the respondents. It cannot be said that there is willful and deliberate disobedience of the directions issued by the Division Bench. In case, the applicant is aggrieved by the order and the action of the respondents in fixing his pay-scale, it is always open for him to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum.
9. With these observations, the present application stands rejected.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) Sd/-
(GITA GOPI,J) MAHESH/79 Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Tue Feb 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 11 22:34:33 IST 2025