Gujarat High Court
Natubhai Ishwarbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 30 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3386/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3386 of 2010
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10274 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NATUBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Petitioner(s) No. 3
MS SHIVANI J BAROT FOR MR PA JADEJA(3726) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,2,3.1,4,5,6,7
MS SURBHI BHATI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 30/07/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. As common question of facts and law are involved in these petitions, with the consent of learned advocates for the parties, these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The petitioners were serving as Livestock Inspectors under the respondent no.2 and they retired from the services between the year 2003 to 2005. These petitions Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:32:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3386/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined pertain to the exercise of option for the revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1987 consequent upon the introduction of Gujarat Civil Services (Revision and Pay) Rules, 1987. The petitioners could not exercise the options within the prescribed period and hence, they approached the competent authorities. Since the authorities refused to do anything in the matter, the petitioners, along with others, filed appeals before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar, which were dismissed vide order dated 4.6.2007 by observing that since the Government in finance department had already refused options to the appellants of the Appeal Nos.88 to 91 of 2004 which were decided by the Tribunal on 4.8.2006, the Tribunal is unable to interfere in the present appeals. In the said appeal nos.88 to 91 of 2004, decided on 4.8.2006, the Tribunal had directed the Director of Animal Husbandry (respondent no.2 herein) to recommend to the State Government to accept the options of those appellants and the State Government was directed to take a decision in the matter.
3. It is stated that pursuant to the said order, by communication dated 21.9.2006, the Director of Animal Husbandry wrote a letter to the State Government in Agriculture and Cooperative Department to send the options received from those persons to the finance department for Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:32:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3386/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined taking necessary decision as regards the options. By letter dated 11.11.2006, the Deputy Secretary of the Agriculture and Cooperative Department informed the Director of Animal Husbandry that the finance department had not accepted the options of these appellants. The said appellants are petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos.10274 of 2008. The petitioners of Special Civil Application No.3386 of 2010 are similarly situated to the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.10274 of 2008.
Hence, these petitions are filed with prayers to direct the respondents to accept the options of the petitioners as required by the Resolution dated 14.7.1988 and to revise their pay and pension accordingly and to pay the amounts due and payable with 10% interest.
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties. 4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are entitled to exercise the options as a result of the Gujarat Civil Service (Revisions of Pay) Rules, 1988; the last date for exercising the options was 30.9.1988 as per the Government Resolution dated 14.7.1988; the petitioners could not exercise the options since they were not intimated to do so nor were they aware of the same since they were serving in remote villages; that the options were Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:32:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3386/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined to be exercised in the prescribed format by 30.9.1988 but such a format was never supplied to the petitioners; that though the petitioners worked so dedicatedly in their entire service record and because of the negligence of the respondents, the petitioners are facing adverse results. He, therefore, prayed to allow these petitions. 4.2 In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the petitioners has relied on the following citations:
(1) S.D.M.Basha V/s Deputy Inspector General of Police reported in 1993(1) GLR 877 of this Court.
(2) Jinder Singh and others decided on 17.12.2018 by the Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP-7855 of 2014 and allied matters.
5. Per contra, learned AGP has submitted that the th 4 Pay Commission was adopted in the State of Gujarat and made applicable from 1.1.1986; a certain amendment was made in the form of Resolution dated resolution dated 14.7.1988, wherein the Gujarat Civil Service (ROP) Rules, 1987 for fixation of pay for Government employee who opt for revise scale of pay from a date subsequent to 1.1.1986 was passed; the cutoff date for pay fixation was mentioned under the Government Resolution dated 14.7.1988; the cutoff Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:32:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3386/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined date was kept on 30.12.1988, wherein the options were to be exercised in the background of the scheme plotted by the State Government; consequent upon the implementation of Gujarat Civil Service (ROP) Rules, 1987 the petitioner did not exercise the option within the prescribed time and cutoff date; that the respondent office had communicated and it was also brought to the notice and knowledge of he department as well as the employee through concerned head of regional department regarding cutoff date and option, as well as, the last for giving option form and the form in which it has to be submitted was also informed; that the other employee working along with the petitioner had been informed as well as exercised the option and therefore stand taken by the petitioners goes converse by stating that they were not informed; the facts of the judgments relied on by learned advocate for the petitioner are different than the present case and therefore, are not applicable to the present case. She, therefore, submitted that when the petitioners were lethargic and non-vigilant about exercising the option, they cannot be given the benefit as prayed for. She, therefore, prayed to dismiss this petition.
5.1 In support of her submissions, she has relied on the following citation:
Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:32:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3386/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined (1) Bank of India & Ors. V/s Muthyala Saibaba Suryanarayana Murthy & Anr. Of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3829 of 2025 decided on 18.3.2025.
6. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and also perused the material on record with a view to Fiat Lux about merits of case of the parties.
7. It transpires that the petitioners were working as Livestock Inspectors under the respondent no.2 and they retired from service between the years 2004 and 2008; the amendment was made in the form of Resolution dated 14.7.1988, wherein the Gujarat Civil Services (ROP) Rules, 1987 for fixation of pay for government employees who opt for revised scale of pay from a date subsequent to 1.1.1986 was passed; however, the petitioners had to exercise option within the prescribed time and cutoff date, which was kept on 30.12.1988; the record shows that the communication was made to the head of the department and also to the employee through the head of the regional department about the cutoff date and option, however, the petitioners did not opt for the same. Further, the cutoff date was 30.12.1988, the appeals before the Tribunal were filed in the year 2004 and 2006; the petitioners retired in the years between 2004 and 2008; what the petitioners did for all these years is not coming on the record; it cannot be believed that the Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:32:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3386/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined petitioners did not come to know about the same all these years and suddenly after so many years, the petitioners have claimed for the said benefits.
8. At this stage, it is fruitful to refer to the judgment relied on by the learned AGP Muthyala Saibaba Suryanarayana Murthy & Anr., wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"15. The Division Bench referred to the beneficial nature of the policy to grant relief to the first respondent. Whenever a policy is formulated, which is beneficial in nature for the subjects to be governed thereby but, at the same time, prescribes a time limit for the subjects to act, it is not and cannot be the law that the proposed benefits can be availed of by a subject beyond the stipulated period and at any time in future suiting his convenience.
16. Almost half a century back, this Court in Mani Subrat Jain V. State of Haryana had sounded a word of caution as follows:
"9.....It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:32:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3386/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something...."
17. In the present case, after the first respondent did not avail the opportunity to exercise option by 30 th October, 2010, there was no occasion for denial or deprivation of a legal right of the first respondent by the appellants. The harm or loss arising out of failure of the first respondent to opt for the pension scheme was not wrongful in the eye of law since it is he who had to be blamed for the situation where he found himself. The first respondent had neither sustained any injury to any legally protected interest nor had he been subjected to a legal wrong. He did not suffer a legal grievance and had no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on. Thus, not having a legally protected right which could have been judicially enforced by seeking a mandamus, the writ petition of the first respondent was plainly not maintainable and, thus, the Single Judge rightly dismissed the same.
18. The Division Bench, in course of its interference with the order dismissing the writ petition, failed to realise that in exercise of writ powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, the high courts of the country do not come to the aid of the tardy, the indolent, and the lethargic. This golden truth has to borne in mind by all courts exercising high prerogative writ jurisdiction. While mandamus will issue Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:32:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3386/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined to reach injustice, whereever found, it is equally true that exercise of discretion should not unnecessarily be coloured by considerations of sympathy or grace or compassion or charity. These are beyond the scope of the high courts' writ powers. In cases such as these, where acceptable justification for the failure to act with expedition is not proffered, the high courts should stay at a distance."
9. The judgments relied on by learned advocate for the petitioner are not applicable to the case on hand as the facts are different.
10. In view of the above discussion and considering that `time and tide wait for none', though the petitioners were having chance to exercise option with a cutoff date, they did not avail opportunity and there is no satisfactory justification coming forth for the histrionic behaviour and after a long lapse, they have prayed for the same, which cannot be entertained and therefore, these petitions are required to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Notice/Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) SRILATHA Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:32:41 IST 2025