Gujarat High Court
Karshanbhai Ratnajibhai Jitiya vs State Of Gujarat on 25 November, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1212/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1212 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9675 of 2025
===============================================================
KARSHANBHAI RATNAJIBHAI JITIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RAKESH R PATEL(3239) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MITRAJEET S. SHUKLA for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 25/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Rakesh R. Patel for the appellant and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Mitrajeet S. Shukla for the respondents.
2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.09.2025 passed in Special Civil Application No.9675 of 2025, the appellant has preferred this Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:45:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1212/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined Patent, 1865.
3.1. Learned advocate Mr.Rakesh Patel appearing for the appellant has referred to the facts of the case and submitted that the respondents have not given the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 06.11.1982 whereby, the Recruitment Rules were amended and the eligibility to Class-IV employees with SSC, to be promoted at the post of Surveyor, was extended. It was submitted that the appellant-original petitioner came to know about such Notification in the year 2015 and therefore, he made various applications starting from 24th August, 2015 onwards which ultimately was decided by the respondents on 25.04.2025 rejecting the representation made by the appellant.
Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:45:56 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1212/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined 3.2. It was submitted that it was not fault of the appellant for not getting the promotion to the post of Surveyor as the appellant was appointed as Work-Charge Helper in the Office of the District Inspector of Land Records, Rajkot on 3rd February, 1973 and he had passed examination of SSC in March, 1976 and therefore, the appellant was entitled to get the promotion to the post of Surveyor having two years of experience as per the Notification dated 06.11.1982.
3.3. It was submitted that the appellant has time and again pointed out to the respondents that the Notification dated 06.11.1982 was not implemented by the the respondents and therefore, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the same, even after his retirement, so as to see that his Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:45:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1212/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined pension is increased accordingly.
4. Having heard learned advocate Mr.Rakesh Patel for the appellant and on perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, it appears that the delay has come in the way of appellant. It emerges from the record that the appellant, for the first time made a representation for implementation of the Notification dated 06.11.1982 after seven years from the date of his retirement in the year 2008. It is true that the representation made by the appellant is rejected after almost ten years by the respondents but the delay of about seven years, occurred in preferring the representation, cannot be condoned and is rightly not condoned by the learned Single Judge while rejecting the petition by observing as under :
Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:45:56 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1212/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined
"5. From the above narration, it would appear that the petitioner is of the opinion that the grievances as regards the service conditions, more particularly condition with regard to promotion etc. could be agitated at any time of the liking of the employee. The petitioner also appears to be under some mistaken impression that the Courts are waiting to give justice to person like the petitioner, who deemed it appropriate to approach the Court at any time when they feel it convenient.
6. To this Court, it would appear that the petitioner is an out and out indolent litigant, who does not require any kind of discretionary relief from this Court. The petitioner making an absurd claim as regards a Gazette Notification issued by the State Government having been hidden by the respondents, neither appeals to reason and is too far fetched for this Court to even try and appreciate. A Gazette Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:45:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1212/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined Notification for promotion from Class IV category to the post Surveyor, being hidden by the officers of the State Government from the year 1982 till the year 2022 is nothing, but a fanciful allegation by the petitioner, who unfortunately thinks extraordinarily high of himself to believe that State or its officers would be complicit in the alleged act of hiding a public document with otherwise no material implications since it states as regards eligibility of Class IV employees to be promoted to Class III post.
7. Furthermore, the petitioner is challenging order dated 25.04.2025 inter alia submitting that he was not required to pass departmental examination etc. To this Court, it would appear that while it is the duty of officers of the State Government to reply to requests / representations made by the employees of the State Government i.e. their subordinates etc., yet to this Court, it would also Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:45:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1212/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined appear that when the applications are preferred after an extraordinary long time, merits of such applications should not have been looked into and whereas the higher authorities ought to have disposed of the applications only on the ground of the applications being inordinately delayed.
8. To this Court, it would appear that even if the petitioner has some reasonable grievance to state about the observations made in order dated 25.04.2025, yet the same would either relate back to the year 1983 or thereabout and under such circumstances, approximately four decades after such grievance had arisen and after 17 years of the petitioner's retirement, it would be too late in the day for the petitioner to agitate such grievances."
5. In view of the above findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge, no interference Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:45:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1212/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined is required to be made in the impugned Judgment and Order dated 16.09.2025 as the appellant has already retired in the year 2008 and equities cannot be changed which has achieved finality over a period of time. The Appeal therefore, is accordingly dismissed.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) (L. S. PIRZADA, J) PALAK Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:45:56 IST 2025