Nirubha Ravubha Parmar vs State Of Gujarat For On Behalf Of

Gujarat High Court

Nirubha Ravubha Parmar vs State Of Gujarat For On Behalf Of on 25 July, 2025

                                                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/SCA/2266/2018                                     ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025

                                                                                                                undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                      R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2266 of 2018

                       ==========================================================
                                              NIRUBHA RAVUBHA PARMAR
                                                       Versus
                                      STATE OF GUJARAT FOR ON BEHALF OF & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR. VISHAL P THAKKER(7079) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       DR. POOJA ASHAR, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
                       ==========================================================

                           CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                                                             Date : 25/07/2025
                                                              ORAL ORDER

1 Rule returnable forthwith. Dr. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent - State. With consent of the learned advocates, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

2 The petitioner has before this Court with the following prayers:

"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the respondent authorities to grant the benefits of govt. resolution dtd. 17.10.1988 from the initial date of appointment of the petitioner i.e from the year 1968;

B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the respondent authorities to pay the difference of salary, as per the prevailing pay commissions, as well as fix the retiral benefits as per the govt. resolution, as the services Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:38:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2266/2018 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined of the petitioner had become eligible for the same after completion of 10 years of services, in the year 1978 and further pay all consequential monetary benefits to the petitioner in the interest of justice;

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the respondent authorities to grant the benefits of govt. resolution dtd. 17.10.1988 from the initial date of appointment of the petitioner i.e from the year 1968 and further directthe respondent authorities to pay the difference of salary, as per the prevailing pay commissions, as well as fix the retiral benefits as per the govt. resolution, as the services of the petitioner had become eligible for the same after completion of 10 years of services, in the year 1978 and further pay all consequential monetary benefits to the petitioner pending the hearing, admission and final disposal of this petition, in the interest of justice;

(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to declare that the respondent authorities have adopted unfair labor practice and malafido with held the benefits of continuous service to the petitioner and therefore direct the respondent to grant all the benefits of continuous service to the petitioner and pay the arrears of amount with 18% interest to the petitioner and further the respondent No.1 to recover the amount of the interest from the erring officer.

(E) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondent to pay special cost and compensation to the petitioner for present's litigation and for mental tension and hardship caused to the petitioner for non granting the benefits of continuous service to the petitioner by the respondents.

(F) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as deemed fit in the interest of Justice;"

2.1 The petitioner had approached the Labour Court and the Labour Court by a common reference allowed the reference directing the Deputy Executive Engineer to reinstate the workman on their original post without backwages.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2266/2018 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined 2.2 On a challenge to the judgment and award of the Labour Court, the petitions were dismissed and the workmen were reinstated in service. Some of the workman of the award in question except the present petitioner approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 13095 of 2016 praying for the same benefits as the present petitioner has prayed for.

2.3 This Court on 06.09.2018 in Special Civil Application No. 13095 of 2016, passed the following order:

"Heard learned advocate Mr. P. C. Chadhari for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K. M. Antani for the respondent state and its authorities.

2. The six petitioners herein by filling the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, have prayed for grant of benefits of resolution dated 17.10.1988 from the respective date the petitioners fulfilled the conditions of the said resolution. They have further prayed to pay the arrears from the date when they become entitled to. These relief are claimed by submitting that their earlier services as per the judgment and award of the labour court were liable to be considered for the purpose of extending the benefits of the aforesaid resolution.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been working as daily wagers under the respondent No.3 Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:38:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2266/2018 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined Rajkot, since number of years. The petitioner No.1 has been working for more than 30 years, the petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 6 have been working for more than 25 years; whereas petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 also have been working for 25 years, having superannuated thereafter. It is their case that they approached the respondent authorities and requested the grant of the benefits of resolution dated 17.10.1988, however, their request made on several times did not yield any result.

3.1 The services of the petitioners were terminated at one point of time in the past which compelled them to raise industrial dispute. The labour court, Surendranagar, by its common judgment and award dated 26.12.2006 allowed the Reference directing the respondent No.4 Deputy Executive Engineer to reinstate the petitioners on their original post without back wages. This judgment and award of the labour court was unsuccessfully challenged before this court by the respondents who had filed Special Civil Application No. 16026 of 2007 to Special Civil Application No. 16029 of 2007. The petitions came to be dismissed on 30.07.2007 by this court. Thereafter the petitioners were reinstated in service by office order dated 3.12.2008. As the respondents had not been extending the benefits of the resolution, the petitioners had again knocked the doors of this court by filling Special Civil Application No. 5816 of 2011. This petition was disposed of on 2.5.2011 wherein this court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in light of the attendant facts.

3.2 It is the case of the petitioners that despite the aforesaid directions once again given by the High Court, the respondents continued to deprive of their legitimate claim for extension of the benefits of resolution date 17.10.1988. The petitioners have named other employees who were also terminated Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:38:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2266/2018 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined and their termination was set aside by the labour court in similar way as turned in the case of the petitioners and that those persons were reinstated and granted the benefits of resolution dated 17.10.1988, but the petitioners were discriminated against.

4. The benefits flowing from resolution dated 17.10.1988 are based on the concept of continuous service. The daily rated workmen having been completed certain numbers by putting continuous service are given benefits of pay scale permanency etc under the said resolution. The case of the petitioners for extending the beneficial provisions of the said resolution is based on the judgment and award of the labour court. The petitioners contended that since the labour court has reinstated them, their services are laible to be treated as continuous required to be reckoned from the date of actual joining. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied on decision of this court in Nanjibhai Madhabhai vs. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No. 2192 of 2017 decided on 24.7.2018 to submit that the facts of that case was similar and the petitioner of the said petition was identical situated who was given the relief by this court. 4.1 On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Antani submitted that the continuity of service has not been expressly granted by the labour court and therefore there is no continuity of service, the petitioners cannot claim benefit of resolution on the basis of they had completed continuous service for certain number of years.

5. In Vasantika R. Dalia Vs. Baroda Municipal Corporation [1998(2) LLJ 172], this Court was posed to interpret the judgment and award of the Labour Court which granted the relief of reinstatement to the workmen. The relief of back-wages was denied and the relief of continuity of service was not denied Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:38:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2266/2018 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined specifically and that in the relief of reinstatement granted, the word 'continuity' was not mentioned.

5.1 The Court observed to lay down that "It may be straightaway observed that once the relief of reinstatement is granted, the continuity of service is a direct consequence rather inherent in the relief of this nature". It was held that when the relief of reinstatement was granted and the continuity of service was not specifically denied, the workman has to be relegated to the same position as was held by it at the time of termination. When the order of termination was found to be void, the petitioner, it was held, would be entitled to hold the relief of reinstatement with continuity where there was no mention of specific denial to such continuity.

5.2 The Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others [2002 (92) FLR 838], held that once the plaintiff was directed to be reinstated in service upon setting aside of the order of termination, continuity of service could not be denied. The Court observed that the case was not of fresh appointment but it was one of reinstatement and that being the position, it was observed that the High Court was in error in denying the continuity of service.

6. Thus and therefore, even though the judgment and award of the Labour Court had not expressly granted the continuity, at the same time it did not deny the continuity in any expressed terms. The grant of continuity would have to be read with the order of reinstatement. The petitioner would be entitled to be treated continuous in service upon reinstatement. Resultantly, the petitioner would be entitled to be granted the benefits of resolution dated 17.10.1988 accordingly by reckoning his services as continuous from the date of his initial appointment.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2266/2018 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined 6.1 When the award of the Labour Court had not expressly denied the continuity is to be interpreted as per the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh (supra), the concept of continuity could not be distinguished for the purpose of granting any other service benefits. Learned Assistant Government Pleader made a failed attempt to submit that the continuity for the purpose of granting benefits under resolution dated 17.10.1988 may be treated differently. Any such distinction would be artificial distinction. once the labour court granted the reinstatement and the continuity was not expressly denied, the continuity benefit could be said to be deemed to have been granted and by deeming fiction the services of the petitioners should have to be treated as continuous upon their reinstatement.

6.2 Not only that the averments in the petition remained undisputed that other similarly situated employees shri Pravinbhai Madhavbhai, shri Manubhai Govindbhai and shri Maheboob Husainbhai in whose favour also there was judgment and award of the labour court in similar way, they were shown to have extended the benefits of resolution dated 17.10.1988 by passing order dated 29.5.2009 by the authorities. The petitioners are liable to be treated with parity for the purpose of extension of benefits in question.

6.3 The petitioners cannot be treated differently once the similarly placed employees were extended the benefits of resolution dated 17.10.1988 by considering their services as continuous after the reinstatement is effected pursuant to labour court's judgment and award. In the above view, the denial of continuity of service to the petitioner would stand only for breach of Article 14 of the Constitution.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2266/2018 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined

7. As a result of the above discussion, the petition deserves to be allowed. The respondents are directed to confer and grant the benefits to the petitioner under resolution dated 17.10.1988 of the State Government by reckoning the services of the petitioner from the initial date of his joining and depending upon the completion of requisite number of years to confer the corresponding benefits under the said resolution. The services of the petitioner shall be treated as continuous with effect from the initiate date of joining till the date of reinstatement and notional benefits would be calculated and granted for the period from the date of reinstatement onwards. The arrears which may arise and become payable by virtue of this order from onwards the date of reinstatement shall be paid by the authorities to the petitioner within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of the present order. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted."

3 Admittedly, the present petitioner is similarly situated, inasmuch as, he was part of the same award of the Labour Court which was under consideration in the petition and the order referred to hereinabove. Obviously therefore, the present petitioner cannot be treated differently than the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 13095 of 2016.

4 Accordingly, the respondents are directed to confer Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:38:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2266/2018 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined and grant the benefits to the petitioner under resolution dated 17.10.1988 of the State Government by reckoning the services of the petitioner from the initial date of his joining and depending upon the completion of requisite number of years to confer the corresponding benefits under the said resolution. The services of the petitioner shall be treated as continuous with effect from the initial date of joining till the date of reinstatement and notional benefits would be calculated and granted for the period from the date of reinstatement onwards. The arrears which may arise and become payable by virtue of this order from the date of reinstatement shall be paid by the authorities to the petitioner within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of the present order. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.

(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) DIWAKAR SHUKLA Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:38:09 IST 2025