Gujarat High Court
Rajkot District Panchayat vs Savjibhai Meghjibhai Kalia on 17 November, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1208/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1208 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4572 of 2018
==========================================================
RAJKOT DISTRICT PANCHAYAT & ANR.
Versus
SAVJIBHAI MEGHJIBHAI KALIA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MS KRISHNA DESAI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ASIT B JOSHI(2567) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR GAURAV K MEHTA(5227) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 17/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Kaash K. Thakkar for the appellants
2. By this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant - Rajkot District Panchayat has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 4572 of 2018.
3. The brief facts of the case, as recorded by the learned Single Judge and reiterated by the learned advocate for the appellants, are as under:-
"The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are such that the petitioner came to be appointed as Live Stock Inspector with respondent Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:38:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1208/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined Panchayat on 22.5.1982; upon completion of 9 years of service the petitioner was granted First Higher Pay Scale on 28.12.1992; thereafter, the respondent Panchayat passed an order giving temporary promotion on the post of Extension officer with DRD agency on deputation to the petitioner on 15.5.1998; the petitioner was posted at Jam Kandorna as Extension Officer on 26.5.1998, however, the petitioner did not accept the promotion on deputation vide applications dated 23.5.1998 and 2.6.1998; the post of Extension Officer was downgraded on 22.9.1998.
2.1 It is stated that the petitioner made a representation on 31.10.1998 and 28.11.1998 that in view of downgrading of post of Extension officer, First Higher Pay Scale maybe granted and earlier order of withdrawing of Higher Pay Scale may be cancelled; on 30.12.1998, the respondent no.2 passed an order of withdrawing the first Higher Pay Scale as petitioner had denied to accept the promotion order dated 15.5.1998; on 10.10.2003, the petitioner approached the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal quashed and set aside the order dated 30.12.1998 and remanded the matter to be decided afresh; the respondent, without deciding the matter afresh, on 21.10.2002, kept on asking the petitioner as to whether the petitioner is ready and willing to accept the promotional post; on 24.10.2002, in reply, the petitioner accepted and gave consent; on 1.11.2002, the petitioner realized about the downgrading of the post of Extension officer and therefore stated that the petitioner is ready to accept the promotion only if it is a regular promotion; on 10.2.2004, by the impugned order, after remand of the Tribunal, the respondent no.2 once again rejected the submission of the petitioner and upheld the order of withdrawal of the first Higher Pay Scale; thereafter, on 12.3.2010, when the petitioner made several representations and as there was no reply or response, Special Civil Application Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:38:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1208/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined No.3236 of 2010 was filed before this Court and this Court directed the respondent authority to decide the representation within a stipulated time.
2.2 It is stated that in the meanwhile, Special Civil Application No.17487 of 2012 filed by one similarly situated person came to be allowed vide order dated 12.4.2017 and therefore the petitioner once again made representation dated 27.7.2017 along with copy of the judgment of Special Civil Application No.17487 of 2012 requesting to give similar treatment to the petitioner, however, the respondent no.3 rejected the representation of the petitioner on the same ground that earlier petitioner had refused to accept the promotion and therefore higher pay scale is withdrawn by the authority and therefore this petition is filed. By way of the amendment being granted by order dated 10.2.2004 passed in Civil Application No.2 of 2023, the prayer 9 (AA) was amended in the petition."
4. Learned advocate Mr.Kaash Thakkar appearing for the appellants tried to draw the distinction between the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 17487 of 2012, who are admittedly similarly situated employees as the respondent - original petitioner and there is no distinction with regard thereto. It was submitted that the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 17487 of 2012 were the employees, who have taken the promotion and thereafter, the Government downgraded the post of Extension Officer, equivalent to Live Stock Inspector on 22.09.1998 whereas, in the facts of the present case, the respondent - original petitioner refused to take the promotion dated 23.05.1998 and thereafter detailed order of transferring and posting was Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:38:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1208/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined passed on 26.05.1998, posting the petitioner at Jamkandorana along with the petitioners of the Special Civil Application No. 17487 of 2012.
5. It was further submitted that the respondent thereafter, in the year 2002, again in response to the consent sought by the appellants on 21.10.2002, gave a conditional consent for deputation as Extension Officer, however, the same was withdrawn by respondent vide letter dated 01.11.2002.
6. It was therefore submitted that the facts of both the cases are different.
7. On perusal of the facts narrated and taking into consideration the observations made in the Judgment and Order dated 12.04.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 17487 of 2012, wherein it is observed that once the post of Extension Officer is downgraded by the State Government on 22.09.1998, there was no question of any promotion to be given to the petitioner by the respondent, irrespective of whether the consent is obtained or not, by the time of placing the petitioner on deputation as Extension Officer. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge has been affirmed by the co-ordinate Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.1071 of 2017, by observing as under:-
"4. Having considered the submissions of learned advocate Shri Munshaw the following undisputed position emerges from the facts on record:Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:38:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1208/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined (1) On completion of 9 years service in the year 1991, the respondent-original petitioner was granted the first higher grade scale by an order dated 28.12.1992 with effect from 1.9.1991. The higher grade scale granted was that of Rs.14,00-
2300 revised scale Rs.4,500-7,000/-
(2) The order dated 15.5.1998, 15.5.1998, though styled as an order of promotion to the post of Extension Officer, it was in effect an order sending the respondent on deputation outside the Panchayat, to the District Rural Development Agency Agency.
(3) The petitioner requested his inability to resume duty at the place he was sent on deputation. Before the final notice to resume on deputation as Extension Officer, vide an order dated 30.09.2008 and the impugned order dated 30.12.1998, withdrawing the higher grade scale, the District Rural Development Agency itself downgraded the post of Extension Officer to that of Livestock Inspector. In other words, the posting to D.R.D.A even otherwise no longer was a promotion.
5. Benefits of higher grade scale are extended to employees, as there could be dearth of avenues of promotion. The scheme contemplates withdrawal of benefit of higher grade scale on an incumbent refusing regular promotion. If the order dated 15.5.1998 is perused what becomes apparent is that, though the order states that the respondent-original petitioner was being temporarily promoted, it categorically further stated that such a promotion was on deputation to the District Rural Development Agency. The Agency to which the respondent was being sent is an autonomous body not within the Panchayat. Therefore, the order of 15.5.1998 was in effect an order sending the respondent on deputation, without his consent. Therefore the condition attached to the order that in the Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:38:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1208/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined event, such promotion is refused, the higher grade would be withdrawn was not a valid condition, as the order was not in effect, an order of promotion but an order sending the respondent on deputation, without his consent and therefore could not have imposed a condition that it did. It is a well settled proposition of law that no employee can be sent on deputation, without his consent. The order of 15.5.1998, asking the respondent-original petitioner to resume at Dhoraji under the D.R.D.A, was admittedly an order of deputing the respondent on a post outside the Panchayat, for which his consent was not obtained. Once that be so, it cannot be said that, the petitioner had refused promotion. Order dated 15.5.1998, without consent was an order non-est. The consequential order dated 30.12.1998, withdrawing the higher grade scale would therefore naturally fall flat and be held to be illegal. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion. was therefore completely justified in holding both the orders as bad and arbitrary and quashing the same.
6. Even, otherwise, before the order of 30.12.1998 was passed, withdrawing the higher grade scale, which we have held to be bad, as a result of the order of 15.5.1998, to be so too, by an order dated 29.9.1998, the post of Extension Officer, a promotional post, on which the respondent-original petitioner was expected to resume his duties, was itself downgraded to that of Livestock Inspector. Admittedly therefore even otherwise, there was no question, independently, of the petitioner, having refused promotion, when by virtue of the order of 29.9.2008, the post no longer remained a promotional post."
8. The learned Single Judge has followed the above Judgment and Order passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1071 Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:38:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1208/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined of 2017, which is squarely applicable to the facts of the case of the respondent - original petitioner and following the same, the petition was dismissed.
9. In view of the above, no interference is called for in the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is based on the Judgment and Order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1071 of 2017 and we do not find any distinction in the facts of the case of the respondent - original petitioner with that of the petitioners of the Special Civil Application No.17487 of 2012.
10. The appeal, therefore, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed summarily, with no order as to costs.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) (L. S. PIRZADA, J) STANCY GOMES Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:38:28 IST 2025