Gujarat High Court
Ajmatali Mohammadali Makrani vs The Secretary, Department Of Forest And ... on 24 November, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1221 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
=====================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
=====================================================
AJMATALI MOHAMMADALI MAKRANI
Versus
THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT &
ORS.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR JITENDRA H SINGH(3199) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. ANANTANAND J SINGH(10046) for the Petitioner(s)
No. 1
PRABHATSINH J PARMAR(7996) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1
MR MITUL GAUTAM ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 24/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Leave to amend is granted. By way of amendment, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 22.08.2019 and prays for quashing and setting aside the said order.
Page 1 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:58 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Anantanand Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mitul Gautam appearing on behalf of the respondent- State.
3. Since the pleadings are complete, and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing. Hence, RULE. The learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule for the respondent-State.
4. Though the record of the petition has been made bulky by the parties by placing various documents on record, the original dispute agitated in the petition lies within a very narrow compass. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that he is entitled to receive pension from 01.01.2015 as per the applicable eligibility criteria.
5. The brief facts of the petitioner's case, as Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined stated by learned advocate Mr. Singh, are that the petitioner was working with respondent No. 2, i.e., the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Godhra, as a daily-wage driver since 01.12.1989, and retired on 31.12.2014. In 1992, the petitioner was illegally terminated, for which he preferred Reference Case No. 145 of 1999 (old Reference No. 454 of 1992). The reference came to be partly allowed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Godhra, vide order dated 15.01.2000, directing the State Government to reinstate the petitioner with 25% back wages, along with costs of Rs. 250/- payable separately to the petitioner.
6. Thereafter, the aforesaid order was challenged by the State Government by way of Special Civil Application No. 10498 of 2000, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 04.10.2000. The said order was further carried in appeal by way of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1103 of 2001 before the Division Bench of this Court, which was Page 3 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined dismissed by judgment dated 30.06.2010, thereby confirming the orders passed by the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was reinstated.
7. In the meantime, the petitioner was reinstated in service with effect from 01.02.2002, and thereafter he was superannuated vide order dated 31.12.2014 issued by the Range Forest Officer, Mobile Squad, Halol, permitting the petitioner to retire upon attaining the age of 60 years after office hours on 31.12.2014.
8. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, vide order dated 23.01.2015, as per Condition No. 2 of the Government Resolution dated 15.09.2014, and thereafter the petitioner prayed for pension vide his representation dated 07.08.2019, which was rejected by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Godhra, vide order dated 22.08.2019, on the ground that in the judgment of the Labour Court, or the learned Single Judge Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined of this Court, or the Division Bench of this Court, there is no direction to consider the services of the petitioner as continuous service and therefore, as the petitioner has already been given the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, no other benefits can be granted to the petitioner, as the petitioner has remained absent due to the petitioner's absence from service for a period of nine years (though in the order it is stated that the petitioner remained absent for a period of nine years, but from the record it appears that the petitioner's services were terminated in the year 1992 and he was reinstated in the year 2002, and therefore, the aforesaid interregnum period has been treated as absence by the respondents).
9. In view of the above order dated 22.08.2019, it has been held that as the petitioner has remained absent for a period of nine years, he cannot be granted benefits as per the Government Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined Resolution dated 17.10.1988, even though he was already granted such benefits, which is not the case.
10. As the petitioner was denied the benefit of pension vide order dated 22.08.2019, the petitioner has prayed for the relief reproduced in the foregoing paragraph and has preferred the present petition.
11. I have heard learned advocate Mr. Anantanand Singh for the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Anantanand Singh has submitted that the respondents have miserably misinterpreted the settled legal proposition that once an order of reinstatement is passed, unless it specifically denies continuity of service, it is required to be construed as directing reinstatement with continuity of service.
12. Learned advocate Mr. Singh relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Bhagwanbhai Motibhai Malivad versus State of Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined Gujarat, dated 02.02.2022, in Special Civil Application No. 15845 of 2020, wherein, in respect of a similar situation, the retiral benefits flowing from the Government Resolutions dated 17.10.1988 and 15.09.2014 were denied to the workmen, and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by the aforesaid decision, was pleased to allow the petition and grant the benefits to the petitioner. The aforesaid decision was carried in appeal by the State Government by way of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1737 of 2022. However, vide order dated 07.03.2023, the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court.
13. Learned advocate Mr. Anantanand Singh, by pointing out the above decision and relying upon the same, submitted that the services of the present petitioner are also required to be treated as continuous, and therefore the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 are required to be granted to the Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined petitioner in toto, and accordingly the pensionary benefits are also required to be extended to the present petitioner as prayed for.
14. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Gautam vehemently opposed the petition by submitting that for the period from 1992 to 2002 (date of termination 16.07.1992 and date of reinstatement 01.02.2002), the petitioner had not actually worked, and therefore the State Government has rightly denied the retiral benefits, including pensionary benefits, to the petitioner, and hence the order dated 22.08.2019 cannot be said to be erroneous, and the petition deserves to be dismissed. However, Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Gautam could not point out any decision contrary to the one relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Anantanand Singh while opposing the petition.
15. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the record. It is an Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined undisputed fact, emerging from the order dated 22.08.2019, that the petitioner was denied pensionary benefits on the ground that his services for a period of nine years were not considered to be continuous service and, therefore, he was held not entitled to pensionary or other retiral benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, as per the order dated 22.08.2019.
16. In view of the above, what is required to be considered are the observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bhagwanbhai Motibhai Malivad versus State of Gujarat, dated 02.02.2022, in Special Civil Application No. 15845 of 2020, wherein the Co- ordinate Bench has made the following observations in paragraphs 6 to 11, which read as under:
"6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
7. The facts, as narrated hereinabove, are not in dispute. The termination of the petitioner was subject matter of challenge Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined before the Labour Court. He was terminated on 01.04.1996 and pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court and confirmed by this Court, he was reinstated on 06.04.2011 and he reached the superannuation on 30.11.2012. The Labour Court in the award dated 21.07.2009 passed in Reference (LCJ) No.406 of 1999 has directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with 20% back wages, however, no observation with regard to granting or denying continuity of service was made.
8. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh (supra), wherein it has been observed thus:-
"3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on examining the materials on record, we fail to understand how the continuity of service could be denied once the plaintiff is directed to be reinstated in service on setting aside the order of termination. It is not a case of fresh appointment, but it is a case of reinstatement. That being the position, direction of the High Court that the plaintiff will not get continuity of service cannot be sustained and we set aside the part of the impugned order. So far as the arrears of salary is concerned, we see no infirmity with the direction which was given by the lower appellate court taking into account the facts and circumstances including the fact that the suit was filed after a considerable length of time. That part of the decree denying the arrears of salary stands affirmed and this appeal stands allowed in part to the extent indicated above."Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:58 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined Thus, the Supreme Court has enunciated that the continuity of service cannot be denied to the workman if he is directed to be reinstated in service on setting aside the order of termination.
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao (supra) has also reiterated the principle of law. The same is as under:-
"7. Ex facie, the Labour Court having awarded reinstatement to the appellant, continuity of service would follow as a matter of law. The award of the Labour Court dated 27 February 2008 does not specifically deny continuity of service. Hence the observation of the High Court to the effect that the Labour Court had denied continuity of service is erroneous and would accordingly stand corrected in terms of what has been observed herein-above. The appellant would be entitled to continuity of service."
Thus, it is well settled
proposition of law that once the
reinstatement as awarded by the Labour Court, the continuity of service would follow as a matter of course. Thus, the entire service from the date of termination till he was reinstated in service i.e. from 01.04.1996 to 06.04.2011 is required to be treated as continuous.
10. The issue with regard to denying the benefit flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 on the ground of non- completion of 240 days in similar facts is required to be considered in view of the observations made by the Division Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined Bench in the order dated 18.06.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1268 of 2017. The Division Bench has observed thus:-
"5. Thus, the upshot of the aforesaid facts and discussion is that the present respondent - workman is denied the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 only on the ground that he had not completed 240 days in a year and his "continuity of service", as granted by the Labour Court vide award dated 23.07.2007 and confirmed by this court, cannot be considered. The stand taken by the present appellants that the respondent - workman is not entitled to the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 deserves to be deprecated. Once it has been established by this court that the respondent-workman is reinstated in service with continuity of service, the workman would be entitled to get the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, and such benefits cannot be denied to the respondent-workman only on the ground that he has not worked for 240 days. He was forced to live without work because of his illegal termination. The appellants cannot' take benefit of their illegal action. The termination of the respondent - workman was found to be illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The effect of continuity of service is to be conferred from the year 1996, when he was appointed as a daily wager. The impugned order dated 15.04.2016 is blissfully silent about denying the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the workmen who have been reinstated with continuity of Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined service. The Government Resolutions dated 17.10.1988 and 01.05.1991 envisage grant of benefits of pay fixation, pension, etc. to the daily wagers, who have completed certain number of years of service."
11. The Division Bench, while examining the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 has held that once the termination of the respondent- workman is found to be illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the ID Act"), the effect of continuity of service is required to be conferred and the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 cannot be denied to him on the premise that he has not worked or completed 240 days. The workman was compelled to remain out of service because of his illegal termination and such illegal action on being set aside, the respondents cannot deny the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 on the ground that the petitioner has not completed 240 days and there is no continuity of service. Such contention or submission raised by the respondent is required to be rejected at the outset in view of the fact that the termination of the petitioner has been declared illegal."
17. The aforesaid view was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1737 of 2022 in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9, which read as under:-
Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:58 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined "7. In the case of Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held and observed in paragraph no.8 as under:-
"8. On the question of back wages, the Labour Court had confined the award of back wages to 25%. Having come to the conclusion that the findings in the disciplinary enquiry was perverse, the Labour Court observed that it was a matter of record that the workman has been gainfully employed over a part of the period after dismissal, between 3 March 1990 to 9 September 1992 with another employer. It was in the above circumstances, that the entire component of back wages was not awarded to the appellant and only 25% was awarded. The High Court has no justification to set aside the award of 25% back wages awarded by the Labour Court which was eminently fair and proper. The direction of the High Court for deletion of back wages is therefore unsustainable and is set aside."
8. In the case of M. L. Patil (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held and observed in paragraph no.3 as under:-
"3..........As such the High court may be right and/or justified in denying any salary for the period of two extra years to the writ petitioners if they would have continued in service, on the ground of delay. However, as far as the pension is concerned, it is a continuous cause of action. There is no justification at all for denying the arrears of pension as if they would have been retired / superannuated at the age of 60 years.........."Page 14 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:58 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined
9. With regard to the unexplained delay, the learned Single Judge has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2002) 9 SCC 492 and has observed that the Supreme Court has enunciated that the continuity of service cannot be denied to the workman if he is directed to be reinstated in service on setting aside the order of termination. The learned Single Judge has also referred to the decision in the case of Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao (supra) and observed that it is well settled proposition of law that once the reinstatement as awarded by the Labour Court the continuity of service would follow as a matter of course. Thus, the entire service from the date of termination till he was reinstated in service i.e. from 1st April 1996 to 6th April 2011 is required to be treated as continuous. With regard to issue of denying the benefit flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17th October 1988 on the ground of non-completion of 240 days, the learned Single Judge has considered the observations made by the Division Bench in the order dated 18th June 2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1268 of 2017 more particularly paragraph No.5 which reads thus:-
"5. Thus, the upshot of the aforesaid facts and discussion is that the present respondent - workman is denied the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 only on the ground that he had not completed 240 days in a year and his "continuity of service", as granted by the Labour Court vide award dated 23.07.2007 and Page 15 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined confirmed by this court, cannot be considered. The stand taken by the present appellants that the respondent - workman is not entitled to the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 deserves to be deprecated. Once it has been established by this court that the respondent - workman is reinstated in service with continuity of service, the workman would be entitled to get the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and such benefits cannot be denied to the respondent - workman only on the ground that he has not worked for 240 days. He was forced to live without work because of his illegal termination. The appellants cannot take benefit of their illegal action. The termination of the respondent - workman was found to be illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The effect of continuity of service is to be conferred from the year 1996, when he was appointed as a daily wager. The impugned order dated 15.04.2016 is blissfully silent about denying the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the workmen who have been reinstated with continuity of service. The Government Resolutions dated 17.10.1988 and 01.05.1991 envisage grant of benefits of pay fixation, pension, etc. to the daily wagers, who have completed certain number of years of service."
18. By making the above observations, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal, which indicates that both Page 16 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined the Co-ordinate Bench as well as the Division Bench of this Court have categorically held that once reinstatement is awarded by the Labour Court, continuity of service follows as a matter of course. Therefore, merely because continuity of service is not expressly stated, the same cannot be denied to a workman. In view of the above two decisions, which are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, the period for which the petitioner's services are treated as absent--namely, the nine-year period-- and the order dated 22.08.2019 based on such consideration, cannot be said to be legally correct. Accordingly, the order dated 22.08.2019 is required to be quashed and set aside, and is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to pension with effect from 01.01.2015, along with all consequential and incidental benefits flowing therefrom. The respondents are directed to commence payment of pension to the petitioner within a period of three months from today, and in any case, not Page 17 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined later than 01.04.2026. The arrears, if any, are directed to be paid to the petitioner within a period of six months from today, and in any case, not later than 01.07.2026.
19. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) Pallavi Page 18 of 18 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:58 IST 2025