Gujarat High Court
Ashvinbhai Bhikhabhai Barot vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 6 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9291/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9291 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
ASHVINBHAI BHIKHABHAI BAROT & ORS.
Versus
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/
REPRESTENTATIVES for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DWIJEN JOSHI(8518) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1
MR DP JOSHI(1163) for the Petitioner(s) No. 2,3
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
MR. SIDDHARTH RAMI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 06/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) RULE returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Kirit Patel as also learned AGP Mr. Siddharth Rami, waive service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respective respondents.
2) Heard learned advocate Mr. D.P.Joshi for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr. Kirit Patel for learned advocate Mr. Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 02:55:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9291/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025 undefined H.S.Munshaw for respondent Nos.1 & 3 and learned Asst. Government Pleader Mr. Siddharth Rami for respondent No.1.
3) With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the present writ petition is taken up for final hearing.
4) The present writ petition is filed under Articles 14, 16, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief/s:
"10 (A) This Honourable Court be pleased to admit and allow this petition.
(B) This Honourable Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction including the writ in the nature of mandamus and present petitioners be granted benefit of regular employees as it is granted to other employees from their original date of employment.
(C) Pending, admission hearing and / or final disposal of this Special Civil Application present petitioners be granted benefit of regular employees as it is granted to other employees from their original date of employment.
(D) his Honourable Court be pleased to grant any other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
"E" The Hon'ble Court may be please to grant the benefit of pension as the petitioner No. 1, 2 & 3 are having pensionable service as per initial date of appointment and be further please to grant other bene4fits of retirement as per regularization of service.
"F" During the pendency and hearing of this petition, the petitioner no.1 has died on 13/10/2022 and petitioner No. 3 has retired on 31/12/2049. Hence both the petitioners may be granted the benefits of pension."Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 02:55:17 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9291/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025 undefined
5) FACTS OF THE CASE 5.1) The short controversy germane in the present writ petition about the fact that initial appointment of the original petitioners with respondent No.1- Corporation was as daily wagers and due to policy decision of respondent - Corporation, their services were regularized by Corporation vide its Resolution dated 30.05.2013, whereby they were considered as regular employees of respondent - Corporation w.e.f. 01.04.2013. It is not in dispute that on getting such benefits of regularization, regular pay-scales received by the respective petitioners until they retired from the services.
5.2) Thus, only grievance now left according to the case of the petitioners about not granting pensioner benefits to the petitioners by respondent - Corporation as same appears to have been denied on the ground that respective petitioners having not completed qualifying service to get pensionary benefits.
6) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS 6.1) Learned advocate Mr. Joshi appearing for the petitioners would vehemently submit that all petitioners were initially appointed in year 1996 on the post of Fitter as Daily wager. It is submitted that as per policy of respondent- Corporation, on Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 02:55:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9291/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025 undefined completion of 5 years and 900 days services on such post, petitioners were entitled to be regularized in service. Nonetheless, the respondent - Corporation took long time to grant such benefits to the petitioners, inasmuch as, the services of the petitioners came to be regularized by giving them permanent appointment vide Resolution dated 30.05.2013 given effect from 01.04.2013. So, there is no fault on the part of the petitioners but due to delay on the part of respondent - Corporation in not granting benefits of their own policy, resulted into injustice to the petitioners.
6.2) Learned advocate Mr. Joshi would respectfully submit that if regularization of serviced of petitioners would be counted/considered on completion of 5 years and 900 days, all petitioners are eligible to get pensionary benefits being completed qualifying service to receive pension, which require to be granted by the respondent - Corporation by giving effect of regularization on completion of 5 years and 900 days of their service. It is submitted that having not granted such benefit to petitioners respondents violated their fundamental rights to receive pension. 6.3) Learned advocate Mr. Joshi would rely upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 02:55:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9291/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025 undefined Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. dated 18.10.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.20185 of 2018, whereby would contend that services rendered by the petitioners as daily wagers requires to be considered while calculating qualifying service for granting pensionary benefits.
6.4) Lastly, learned advocate Mr. Joshi would draw the attention of this Court that no specific reply filed by the respondent - Corporation in regards to non-granting of pensionary benefits, inasmuch as, amended prayer of writ petition is not responded by them.
6.5) Making the above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Joshi would request this Court to allow the present writ petition.
7) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 3.
7.1) Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Kirit Patel for learned advocate Mr. H.S.Munshaw would submit that none of the petitioners are entitled for any relief as prayed in the present writ petition, inasmuch as, all petitioners were initially appointed as daily wagers and when their services were regularized w.e.f. Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 02:55:17 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9291/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025 undefined 01.04.2013, an undertaking submitted by each petitioner to the respondent - Corporation, whereby they have accepted their regularization of service with effect from 01.04.2013 only. 7.2) Learned advocate would also draw the attention of this Court to the reply filed by the respondent - Corporation and the undertaking given by each petitioner, whereby he pointed out that petitioners have consciously accepted the regular appointment w.e.f. 01.04.2013. It is further submitted that as per the undertaking, petitioners agreed that no legal objections/dispute will be raised by them in future including any other claim.
7.3) Learned advocate would further submit that once petitioners have without any objections accepted such regular appointment, as per policy decision taken by the respondent - Corporation, after lapse of about 5 years then after, they are not entitled to raise any grievance including pension by way of filing present writ petition.
7.4) Making the above submissions, he would request this Court to reject the present writ petition.
8) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2. 8.1) So far argument of learned AGP is concerned, he would Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 02:55:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9291/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025 undefined adopt the arguments so canvassed by the learned advocate for respondent Nos.1& 3.
9) QUESTION OF LAW
9.1) A short question that falls for my consideration is, as to
whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, period of service of petitioners as daily wagers can be considered while calculating period of service on the post of Fitter?, and Whether petitioners are entitled to receive any pensionary benefits thereby?
ANALYSIS
10) The facts which are observed and submitted during the course of argument are not in dispute.
10.1) The petitioners initially appointed as daily wagers in the year 1996 by respondent - Corporation on the post of Fitter. 10.2) Nonetheless, there is nothing on record to show that such appointment was by any regular mode of employment. It is also not in dispute that their services were regularized by the respondent - Corporation with effect from 01.04.2013, having so passed Resolution dated 30.05.2013. At the time of getting such regularization benefit from the respondent -Corporation, the Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 02:55:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9291/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025 undefined petitioners have submitted an undertaking which are on record, submitted along with reply of respondent No.1. The bare look of such undertaking, clearly indicates that it has been clearly accepted by the petitioners that they are agreed with terms of their appointment given on the post of Fitter on regular basis w.e.f. 01.04.2013 only and they will not raise any grievance in future including no other benefits will be claimed in this regard. 10.3) Of course, one of the petitioners namely Harishbhai Maljibhai Parmar, while giving such undertaking, has made an endorsement that he is giving his consent subject to condition that he should not get less salary than what he is currently receiving, except this no other reservation put forward. Its not even his case that after regularization, his pay reduced. 10.4) Nonetheless, fact remains that all petitioners have consciously accepted the order of regularization of their services on the post of Fitter w.e.f. 01.04.2013 only, by not raising any grievance of not considering their past service renders on post of Fitter, albeit as daily wager.
11) Thus, in view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, according to my view, petitioners Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 02:55:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9291/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025 undefined cannot now raise any such grievance and to claim that respondent - Corporation requires to consider the period of service spent by them as daily wagers, for pensionary benefits.
12) As per rule of estoppel and waiver, claim of petitioners requires to be denied which is appropriately denied by the respondent - Corporation having not considered the request of petitioners made by them through their legal notice issued on 06.09.2016.
13) As far as policy of respondent - Corporation is concerned, whereby, on completion of 5 years and 900 days by daily wager, their case can be considered for regularization is concerned, in absence of such policy on record, this Court would not like to make further comment on it but only observe that on completion of such period, right of eligible daily wager would accrue, thereby, their case can be considered for regularization on completion of such period. Nonetheless, it is for the respondent - Corporation to consider the case of such daily wager, as per its policy decision to be taken by the competent Authority. It is not even remotely suggested by the petitioners that on completion of the aforesaid period, any claim raised by the petitioners before the respondent - Corporation as the case may be. Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 02:55:17 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9291/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025 undefined
14) Moreover, judgment which has been relied upon by the learned advocate Mr. Joshi for the petitioners in support of his submission, is not applicable to the case on hand, inasmuch as, in the cited case, petitioner appears to have been appointed as ad-hoc, later on, service regularized, whereas, in the case on hand, indisputably the petitioners appointed as daily wagers.
15) In any case, after perusing the reply and the documents annexed therewith, I am of the opinion that petitioners are not entitled to receive any pensionary benefits having not completed qualifying service to receive such benefits.
16) Thus, with the aforesaid observations, discussion, and reasons, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The writ petition bereft of any merit requires to be rejected which is hereby rejected. Ad-interim relief / interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated. Rule is discharged. No costs.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT,J) Lalji Desai Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 02:55:17 IST 2025