Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Shantaben Kantilal Parmar on 3 January, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/31/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 31 of 2025
In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 35920 of 2024
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Versus
SHANTABEN KANTILAL PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SAHIL B. TRIVEDI, AGP for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR MURALI N DEVNANI(1863) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 03/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present application is filed seeking condonation of delay of 418 days in the captioned appeal.
2. At the outset, Mr. Sahil B.Trivedi, learned A.G.P. has submitted that in various appeals after condoning the delay of similar nature, the appeals are disposed of in light of the order of the Supreme Court dated 11.04.2023 passed in Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023. She has submitted that in most of the matters, learned advocates appearing for the respective parties had consented for condoning the delay and ultimately, had agreed that the order may be passed in the present appeals in light of the order passed by the Supreme Court. He has also submitted that in fact, the entire issue was before the Supreme Court and thereafter, in view of dismissal of some of Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Jan 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 06 22:03:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/31/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2025 undefined the Letters Patent Appeals filed by the State, the policy was also framed by the State Government regulating the issue of grant of one increment. He has submitted that ultimately, when the Supreme Court has clarified in the order dated 11.04.2023 relating to grant of one increment to the employees similarly situated to the opponent, the Litigation Committee, which was formed by the State Government, had undertaken necessary exercise to see that the Letters Patent Appeals are filed. He has referred to the averments made in Paragraph No.3 of the application and also referred to the time line of the litigation before this Court. Thus, it is urged that the delay may be condoned and the same order may be passed as was passed by this Court in various other group of matters.
3. Per contra, learned advocate for the opponent has vehemently opposed the present application seeking condonation of delay of more than 400 days. It is submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge has become final. Hence, the delay may not be condoned.
4. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
5. It is an established fact that there are various Writ Petitions filed by numerous employees after the judgment was rendered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.10308 of 2021 dated 11.08.2021. It is also not in dispute that in various High Courts of the country, such issue about grant of one increment accruing on 1 st July to its Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Jan 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 06 22:03:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/31/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2025 undefined employees and who had retired on 30 th June, was raised and examined by different High Courts. Ultimately, the Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Others v. C.P. Mundinamani and Others , dated 11.04.2023, disposed of the Special Leave Petition on identical issue.
6. It appears that thereafter, a review application was filed before the Supreme Court on the very said judgment being Misc. Civil Application (Diary) No.2400 of 2024 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4722 of 2021. By the order dated 06.09.2024, the Supreme Court again clarified with regard to entitlement of one increment to such employees who are similarly situated to the opponent.
7. The Supreme Court has held thus:-
"The issue raised in the present applications requires consideration, insofar as the date of applicability of the judgment dated 11.04.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 2471/2023, titled "Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Others v. C.P. Mundinamani and Others", to third parties is concerned.
We are informed that a large number of fresh writ petitions have been filed.
To prevent any further litigation and confusion, by of an interim order we direct that:
(a) The judgment dated 11.04.2023 will be given effect to in case of third parties from the date of the judgment, that is, the pension by taking into account one increment will be payable on and after 01.05.2023. Enhanced pension for the period prior to 31.04.2023 will not be paid.
(b) For persons who have filed writ petitions and succeeded, the directions given in the said judgment will operate as res judicata, and accordingly, an enhanced pension by taking one increment would have to be paid.Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Jan 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 06 22:03:16 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/31/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2025 undefined
(c) The direction in (b) will not apply, where the judgment has not attained finality, and cases where an appeal has been preferred, or if filed, is entertained by the appellate court.
(d) In case any retired employee has filed any application for intervention/impleadment in Civil Appeal No. 3933/2023 or any other writ petition and a beneficial order has been passed, the enhanced pension by including one increment will be payable from the month in which the application for intervention/impleadment was filed.
This interim order will continue till further orders of this Court. However, no person who has already received an enhanced pension including arrears, will be affected by the directions in
(a), (c) and (d)."
8. In the meantime, the State Government, on dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, had also framed policy regulating grant of one increment in line of the earlier order passed by the Supreme Court. However, when the recent order dated 06.09.2024 was passed by the Supreme Court clarifying its earlier order, the State Government has withdrawn the policy.
9. It is also not in dispute that the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Benches have placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra) for taking similar view.
10. In light of subsequent development, the State Government has filed the present application seeking condonation of delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal on the order passed by the learned Single Judge. We have noticed that there are numerous Letters Patent Appeals filed either by the State Government or by various bodies of the State Government on the basis of the order passed by the Supreme Court. As and when such applications were filed in various Letters Patent Appeals, in fact, the learned advocate for the Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Jan 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 06 22:03:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/31/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2025 undefined opponent-employees have consented for condonation of delay of more than 400 days and accordingly, numerous Letters Patent Appeals were disposed of in line of the order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the Supreme Court in the review application in case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra).
11. The aforesaid fact is not denied by the opponent that in identical facts and on the similar judgments, this Court has entertained the application seeking condonation of delay the Letters Patent Appeals have been disposed. For brevity, we are not inclined to refer to the numbers of such Appeals.
12. Thus, in order to see that uniformity is maintained in all such cases and all the employees are treated at par with the directions issued by the Supreme Court, we are inclined to condone the delay in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal. The same is hereby condoned. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. Registry is directed to give regular number to the Letters Patent Appeal and list the same today.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) (GITA GOPI,J) Pankaj /4 Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Jan 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 06 22:03:16 IST 2025