Gujarat High Court
Ramubhai @ Rambhai Maganbhai Gamit vs State Of Gujarat on 29 January, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1102/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1102 of 2025
=========================================
RAMUBHAI @ RAMBHAI MAGANBHAI GAMIT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=========================================
Appearance :
JAGATSINH L VASAVA for the Petitioner.
MR ADITYA DAVDA, AGP for the Respondents.
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 29/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1996 as approved by DEEO, Surat and Jilla Sahayak Inspector Local Fund Accounts Office, Surat on 27.11.1999 and 16.5.2013 i.e. @ 6550 per month in the pay scale of Rs.5500 - 175 - 9000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and release arrears of pay. The petitioner has further prayed for fixation of pay in respect of petitioner's pension in the scale of Rs.9300-34800 G.P. 4400 under Gujarat Civil Service (Revised) Pay Rules, 2009 w.e.f. 1.2.2006 as approved by DEO, Surat in August, 2011. The petitioner has also prayed to direct the respondents to release the petitioner's arrears of pay w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and arrears of pension and gratuity w.e.f. 1.7.2007 with 16% interest p.a.
2. Considering the above prayers made by the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Jagatsinh L. Vasava was asked as to when the petitioner retired from service, he was fair in stating that the Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Wed Jan 29 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 01:09:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1102/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined petitioner had retired in the year 2007 and though the grievance was existing at that time also, as the petitioner kept on making representations during all these period, therefore, there is delay of around 17 years in preferring the present petition.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Vasava pointed out that there are certain prayers which would indicate that the cause of action arose in the year 2011 and, therefore, it cannot be said that petition is filed after delay of around 18 years as the petitioner was agitating his grievance till 2011 which would curtail the period of delay. He, therefore, requested to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically ignoring the aforesaid delay which according to learned advocate Mr. Vasava is no delay at all in view of the fact that the petitioner was kept making representations all throughout which have never been answered by the respondents and, therefore, the petitioner was under the hope that sooner or later, grievance of the petitioner would be considered which did not happen and that is how the present petition is preferred.
4. Learned AGP Mr. Aditya Davda opposed the petition and submitted that long delay even if it is considered from 2011 i.e. of 14 years, the same is not sufficiently explained in the petition. There is nothing in the petition to indicate or explain the delay of 14 years and, therefore, in absence of there being any sufficient explanation of delay, the vital aspect of delay cannot be ignored. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ravindrakumar Thakorlal Garasiya v. State of Gujarat, Letters Patent Appeal No.236 of 2023 decided on 4.7.2023 wherein in similar set of facts, the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Wed Jan 29 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 01:09:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1102/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined petition of the petitioner and when the said order was carried in appeal, the Division Bench of this Court had also dismissed the said appeal in absence of any satisfactory explanation of delay.
By relying upon the above cited decisions, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record, I found that the petitioner's grievance relates back to the year 2007 and at that time, though the petitioner was in service, he did not challenge the action of the respondents of fixing his pay scale erroneously and though the petitioner's prayer is to fix the pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996 to 2007 i.e. for a period of 11 years, the petitioner remained in service. However, the petitioner as it seems did not raise the grievance during the time while he was in service.
6. Even after retirement in the year 2007 and even if it is believed that the petitioner has kept making representations till 2011, right from 2007 to 2025, the Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that during all these years, the petitioner did not approach this Court and set idle in hope that his representations would be decided favourably.
7. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in the decision in the case of Ravindrakumar Thakorlal Garasiya v. State of Gujarat, Letters Patent Appeal No.236 of 2023 decided on 4.7.2023 (Supra), has observed in paragraphs 17 and 18 as under:-
Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Wed Jan 29 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 01:09:53 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1102/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined "17. As noted earlier, the petitioner did not explain his slumber of eight years. He has not made a whisper of word that why he has not raised his claim within time, but raised after eight years i.e. belatedly. In absence of any satisfactory explanation for delay, exercise of judicial discretion under the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised and the learned Single Judge has rightly done so in the facts and circumstances of the case.
18. Learned advocate Mr. NK Majmudar pressed into service the judgment of Special Civil Application No.10751 of 2020 to contend that the delay in making the submission would not be ground for rejection in every case. It is settled principle on the precedent that circumstantial flexibility or factual differences makes a law of world of disparity between conclusion in two cases. The reason in one case cannot be blindly followed until the facts of other case is similarly situated and matched. In deciding the cases, which largely depends upon facts, one should avoid the temptation to decide case by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. The issue before the Division Bench in Special Civil Application No.10751 of 2020 was with regard to increment, which fell due on 1st July as per the amendment of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. The original petitioner was not granted yearly increment Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Wed Jan 29 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 01:09:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1102/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined as he was retired prior to the increment fell due. In background of this fact, since deny to grant increment has effected over the pension, the Division Bench has held that belated approach on the part of the original petitioner for making the representation cannot be a ground to reject the petition. The present case, as stated herein above, is altogether and quite different. Hence, this judgment does not render help to the petitioner."
8. In view of the above observations of the Division Bench of this Court wherein the Division Bench of this Court in a case where delay of 8 years was not sufficiently explained, was pleased to dismiss the appeal of the appellant who was also claiming benefit of third higher pay scale. In the instant case, delay is much more longer i.e. 18 years from the date of retirement of the petitioner and, therefore, in view of the fact that delay of 18 years is not sufficiently explained, the present petition is required to be dismissed and the same is dismissed on the ground of delay itself.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) SAVARIYA Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Wed Jan 29 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 01:09:53 IST 2025