Gujarat High Court
Natvarsinh Dalpatsinh Zala vs State Of Gujarat on 24 July, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1628/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1628 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20918 of 2023
=============================================
NATVARSINH DALPATSINH ZALA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=============================================
Appearance:
MR CHINTAN GANDHI for MS HIMANSHI R BALODI(8919) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MS HETAL PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 24/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the learned Single judge in dismissing the Writ petition, wherein the writ of mandamus has been sought to issue directions to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of promotion to the cadre of Gujarat Administrative Services, Class-I (Senior Scale) (Level 12 in the Pay Matrix).
2. In the writ petition filed in the year 2023, the petitioner has prayed the reliefs as under :-
"A. hold that the petitioner is entitled to deemed promotion as an officer of the Gujarat Administrative Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:37:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1628/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined Service, Class-I (Selection Scale) (Level 13 in Pay Matrix) either on his completion of 2/3 experience or from a date on which details were provided to DPC or from 30.06.2022 as as is is do done in case of his junior K. M. Jani and accordingly, direct the respondent authority to issue appropriate order of deemed promotion with notional benefit till retirement and other consequential benefit, and B. award the cost of petition, and C. pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authority to consider the case of petitioner for deemed promotion as an officer of Gujarat Administrative Service, Class-I (Selection Scale) subject to outcome of the petition"
3. The basis of the claim of the appellant/original petitioner is the instructions issued by the Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances, Government of India dated 10.04.1989, which provides guidelines on Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and issuing instructions that Departmental Promotion Committee should be an annual affair.
4. Taking note of the above, we may simply record that it is undisputed that the appellant/orig. petitioner has never agitated his claim for consideration for promotion by bringing his own action before this Court on the basis of said the guidelines dated 10.04.1989 while in service. For the first time, the petitioner has approached this Court in the Writ petition filed in the year 2023 after the promotion exercise was conducted and one incumbent was promoted to the post vide order dated 30.08.2022, Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:37:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1628/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined two months after the retirement of the appellant herein.
5. The contention in the writ petition that a junior to the appellant had been promoted after his superannuation was, thus, found to be misconceived by the learned Single Judge. It is noted by the learned Single Judge that the DPC was convened on 10.08.2022 pursuant to which promotion was granted to the eligible incumbent.
6. We do not find any error in the order of the learned Single judge holding that the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise grievances about the DPC held on 10.08.2022 and an incumbent having been promoted pursuant to the recommendation of the DPC, after his superannuation.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant herein that the appellant was making representations throughout claiming consideration for promotion prior to his superannuation would be of no benefit. No promotion with retrospective effect can be given as the petitioner had no right to promotion and the right to consideration for promotion, if any, was not agitated at the relevant point of time.
8. Dismissed accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) BIJOY B. PILLAI Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:37:25 IST 2025