Gujarat High Court
Ahmedabad Muncipal Corporation vs Ramanbhai Dahyabhai Patel on 23 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/576/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 576 of 2001
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
AHMEDABAD MUNCIPAL CORPORATION
Versus
RAMANBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RAJESH P MANKAD(2637) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 23/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant-Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation") under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and award dated 28.4.2000 passed in Civil Suit No. 4527 of 1986 by the 15th Court, City Civil court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court") whereby the trial Court has partly allowed the said suit and declared action of the defendant-corporation reverting the plaintiff from the Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 29 23:16:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/576/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined post of organizer as void, illegal and arbitrary. It is also directed that the defendant - corporation shall absorb the plaintiff in other departments within period of two months from the date of order.
2. The facts giving rise to present appeal are that plaintiff appointed under Poshanyukta Ahar Yojna run by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 1-8-76 as part time dispatcher (P.T.D.)and appointed as daily wager organizer on 25-8-1982. Thereafter, from 3-7-83 the plaintiff was reverted and therefore plaintiff made representation to the authority and then on 15th November, 1983 he was appointed as daily wager organizer. However, on 1-4-84 once again he was reverted as P.T.D. Therefore, once again plaintiff made representation before the authority concern and considering representation made by the plaintiff, he was once again appointed as daily wager organizer on 11-7-85. After few days only on 25-7-85 he was once again reverted to the post of PTD and similar situated employees who were junior employees to the plaintiff Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 29 23:16:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/576/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined were continued as organizors.
2.1 In view of the aforesaid facts, the plaintiff respondent herein has filed Civil Suit No. 4527 of 1986 against the corporation. The defendant corporation has filed its written statement at Exh.14 and resisted the suit. According to the defendant the suit is not tenable in view of the law and facts of the case.
2.2 The trial Court after hearing both the sides and after evaluating the evidence placed on record has passed the impugned judgment and award.
2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award the Corporation original defendant has filed present appeal.
3. Heard Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rajesh P. Mankad, learned counsel for the respondent.
4.Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel for the appellant Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 29 23:16:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/576/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is contrary to law, illegal and erroneous. He has submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. He has further submitted that the trial Court has committed error in holding that the respondent was permanently appointed to the post of Daily Organizer. 4.1 Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court has overlooked the fact that the respondent cannot claim any post because the scheme is closed and the cause of action does not survive. In view of the above, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel for the appellant urges before the Court that the impugned judgment and award passed by the trial court may be set aside and present appeal may be allowed.
5. As against that, Mr. Mankad, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and award of the trial Court. He has submitted that the trial Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 29 23:16:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/576/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and award.
5.1 Mr. Mankad, learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that after evaluating the evidence placed on record and after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects, the trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and award. He has also submitted that the trial Court has discussed all the relevant aspects relating to the case and after going though the relevant record, the trial Court has passed impugned judgment and award which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 5.2 Mr. Mankad, learned Counsel for the respondent urges before the Court that present appeal may be dismissed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the trial Court may be confirmed.
6. I have perused the relevant material and documents placed on record. I have also examined the record and proceedings and gone through the impugned judgment Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 29 23:16:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/576/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined and award passed by the trial Court.
7. It appears from the record that the trial Court has framed five issues at Exh.26 and gave answer to these issues in paragraph No.5. The trial Court has also made relevant discussion in paragraph Nos. 7 and 8. The trial Court has also considered documentary evidence referred in the judgment at Exh.38 and 40 and after appreciating the same, the trial Court has passed impugned judgment and award.
8. The Coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 7.2.2001 admitted the appeal. After considering the submissions of both the sides and after considering the facts of the case, the Coordinate bench of this Court has, vide order dated 22.1.2002 passed in Civil Application No. 1274 of 2001 granted interim relief and stayed the operation and implementation of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, which is till date in existence. The relevant part of the order dated 22.1.2002 passed in Civil Application No. 1274 of 2001 Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 29 23:16:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/576/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined reads as under:-
"7. Resultantly, the implementation, execution and operation of the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2000 recorded in Civil Suit No.4527 of 1986 by the Judge, Court No.15, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad is stayed till the decision of appeal on the condition that if the applicant - Corporation is not succeeded in appeal, it shall give all the monetary benefits as if that the opponent was on the post of organizer from the date of passing of the decree. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service permitted"
9. As the dispute relates to the service condition of the workman and therefore, the contention with regard to the jurisdiction which is not vested in the Court, is required to be considered. It is now well settled that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to pass order with regard to the service condition of the workman.
10. Further, it appears that the dispute arose in 1984 and the suit was filed in 1986, almost 39 years have been passed and the cause of action, which was arose at the time of filing of suit, now does not survive.
11. In view of the above facts, present appeal stands Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 29 23:16:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/576/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined allowed and disposed off accordingly. Connected Civil Application, if any, stands disposed off accordingly.
12. Record and proceedings, if received, be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 29 23:16:16 IST 2025