Ujiben Dungarbhai Vaghela vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court

Ujiben Dungarbhai Vaghela vs State Of Gujarat on 8 July, 2025

Author: Nikhil S. Kariel

Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel

                                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/SCA/5806/2023                                  ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025

                                                                                                             undefined




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5806 of 2023

                      ==========================================================
                                               UJIBEN DUNGARBHAI VAGHELA
                                                          Versus
                                                 STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR NILESH M SHAH(780) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                      MS TANUSHREE SHRIMAL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
                      ==========================================================

                           CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                                                         Date : 08/07/2025
                                                          ORAL ORDER

1. Since, the issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 15.09.2022, rendered in Special Civil Application No. 10343 of 2020, with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, this matter is taken-up for final hearing and disposal, today.

2. Rule. Learned AGP waives service for the Respondents.

3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 07.11.2012 to the extent they do not grant the benefit of GR dated 17.10.1988, with effect from 01.10.1988 and to direct the Respondents to grant the benefits with effect from 01.10.1988 notionally upto 12.01.2007 (With Revision of Pay) with a further prayer to direct the respondents to give difference of salary from 13.01.2007 to 31.10.2022 (With Revision of Pay).

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as a daily wager with the Respondents since 1976 and his services came to be Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:16:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5806/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined terminated with effect from 01.01.1988. The petitioner challenged the same by way of Reference (LCS) No. 83 of 2001, wherein, the concerned Labour Court passed the award dated 12.01.2007 and granted reinstatement to the petitioner, without expressly stating that it was with continuity of service.

4.1 Pursuant thereto, the petitioner came to be reinstated in service on 06.10.2008. However, by an order dated 07.11.2012, the petitioner was ordered to be treated as a fresh appointee with effect from 29.08.2007 and thereby, the past service rendered by the petitioner, during the period from 1996 to 2007, was not taken into consideration, at the time of his retirement in the year 2022.

Hence, the present petition.

5. Learned AGP, Ms. Shrimal, vehemently opposed this petition by pointing out from the record that the petitioner's appointment was treated as fresh and he was given fresh appointment vide order dated 07.11.2012 and that after the delay of about 10 years, i.e. in the year 2022, the aforesaid order is sought to be challenged by the petitioner by way of the present petition and therefore, on the ground of delay, itself, this Court may not entertain this petition and may dismiss the same.

6. At this stage, learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, appearing for the petitioner pointed out that in the case of similarly situated person, who happened to be the co-worker of the present petitioner, namely Champaben Ukabhai Parmar, had preferred Special Civil Application No. 10343 of 2020, wherein, the aspect of delay was considered by the Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:16:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5806/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined Coordinate Bench of this Court, when the same was canvassed by the Respondent- State, and after taking into consideration the same, the Coordinate Bench allowed the said petition vide order dated 15.09.2022 and issued certain directions in favour of the co-worker of the petitioner, therein. It was, therefore, prayed that the present petitioner also being the similarly situated person, he may also be granted the reliefs on the similar line.

7. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the material on record, so also the decision of the Coordinate Bench dated 15.09.2022, rendered in Special Civil Application No. 10343 of 2020, and this Court finds that the co-worker of the present petitioner, namely Champaben Ukabhai Parmar, was one of the litigants, along with other co-workers, including the present petitioner, who had preferred Reference (LCS) No. 83 of 2001 in the wake of termination of their services, which was partly allowed by the concerned Labour Court and the directions were issued to re-instate the workers on their original post, but, without back-wages.

7.1 Thus, when the Coordinate Bench of this Court has already taken into consideration the aspect of delay, while deciding Special Civil Application No. 10343 of 2020 and has granted certain reliefs, the case of the present petitioner is also required to be considered on the similar line.

7.2 At this stage, it would be beneficial to refer to the observations made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court from Paragraph-5 onward in its decision dated 15.09.2022, while allowing Special Civil Application No. 10343 of 2020, which read thus;

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5806/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined "5. Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned AGP would submit that the petition is grossly belated inasmuch the order of 07.11.2012 was very much in the knowledge of the petitioner and the petitioner has filed this petition 7 years thereafter.

6. Considering the decision of this court in Special Civil Application No. 389 of 2020 dated 14.02.2022 wherein this court has held as under, the petition deserves to be allowed:

"3. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayer of the petitioner is to direct there spondents to grant the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner from initial date of joining considering the fact that by virtue of the award of the Labour Court dated 29.08.2009, reinstatement was granted with continuity of service, in the award made though not have specifically mentioned the word "continuity".

4. Mr.P.C.Chaudhary learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this court to a decision rendered by the coordinate bench of this Court in Special Civil Application Nos.13095 of 2016 and 2192 of 2017, wherein considering several decisions of this Court including the decision of the Supreme Court, the Court in Special Civil Application Nos.13095 of 2016 held as under:

"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 backwages was denied and the relief of continuity of service was not denied 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 Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:16:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5806/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined 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 C/SCA/13095/2016 ORDER 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 Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:16:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5806/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined 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.

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."

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5806/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined

5. In the latter decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Secretary v. Rajendrasinh Hamirsinh Parmar rendered in LPA No.1527 of 2019 relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao v. Kosan Industries Private Limited [2020 LLR 813] confirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge.

6. Accordingly, the petition is 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 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 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.

7. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly."

7. Accordingly, the petition is 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 initial date of joining till the date of reinstatement and notional benefits and pensionary benefits would be calculated and granted for the Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:16:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5806/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined 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."

8. Taking into consideration the observations made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, as reproduced herein above, and as the learned AGP, Ms. Shrimal, is not in a position to demonstrate that the case of the present petitioner is distinguishable from the case of the co-worker, Champaben Parmar, the present petition deserves to be allowed and the following directions are being issued;

"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 initial date of joining till the date of reinstatement and notional benefits and pensionary benefits would be calculated and granted for the period from the date of reinstatement onward. 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 TWELVE WEEKS from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5806/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined 8.1 This petition is allowed, accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) BDSONGARA Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:16:27 IST 2025