Gujarat High Court
Ramanbhai Surtanbhai Mandol vs State Of Gujarat on 27 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8067/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8067 of 2017
==========================================================
RAMANBHAI SURTANBHAI MANDOL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PARTH PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 27/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Parth Patel waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondents.
2. At the outset, learned AGP Mr. Parth Patel for the respondent-
State would submit the affidavit-in-reply, which is taken on record.
3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Parth Patel for the respondents.
4. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:11:46 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8067/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined "(A) A writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued to
(i) direct the respondents to extend benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner and the petitioner be directed to place in fix pay after his completion of five years service from the date of his first appointment, i.e. 14.02.1995, and further be pleased to place the petitioner in pay-scale after completion of 10 years of service from 14.02.1995;
(ii) direct the respondents to immediately place the petitioner in pay-scale from counting his date of appointment as 14.02.1995 and accordingly be pleased to direct the respondents to fix the petitioner's pay-scale as per Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988;
(iii) to direct the respondents to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner after extending benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988;
(iv) quash and set aside impugned decision dated 21.12.2016 issued by respondent No.2;
(B) Pending the admission hearing and final of the hearing petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately place the petitioner in pay-scale of Class IV as a Watchman by extending benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988; (C) Any other and further relief or reliefs to which this Hon'ble Court deemed fit, in the interest of justice; may kindly be granted."
5. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
5.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Dave appearing for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner is entitled to receive the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17th October 1988, the same was wrongly denied by respondent-State only on the ground that he had not completed 240 days of service Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:11:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8067/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined when terminated. It is respectfully submitted that on getting termination of service by petitioner, he approached the Labour Court who allowed his reference whereby reinstated in service with continuity, thereby, as per provisions of Section-25(B) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he requires to be continued in service and entitled to receive the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17th October 1988. It is further submitted that aforesaid award dated 3rd January 2014 passed by the Labour Court is also confirmed by this Court while dismissing the writ petition vide order dated 18th March 2015 passed in Special Civil Application No.17718 of 2014. 5.2. Learned Advocate Mr. Dave would further respectfully submit that the issue germane in the matter is no longer res integra, having already been decided by two judgments of the Division Bench of this Court, in following cases.
(i) State of Gujarat V/s. Ashok Laxmanbhai Parmar in Letters Patent Appeal No.1268 of 2017 dated 18/06/2018, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 2344;
(ii) Jamnagar District Panchayat & Anr. V/s. Girdharbhai Muljibhai Eradiya & Anr. in Letters Patent Appeal No.1205 of 2025 dated 10/11/2025.
5.3. Making the above submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Dave Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:11:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8067/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined would request this Court to allow the present writ petition.
6. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
6.1. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Patel would respectfully submit that as stated in the reply, it remained undisputed on record that the petitioner has not completed 240 days of service prior to his termination i.e. 31st December 1997 and merely because order of reinstatement with continuity of service passed by the Labour Court, it would not entitle the petitioner to claim any benefit flowing from Government Resolution dated 17th October 1988.
6.2. So, according to learned AGP Mr. Patel, the claim made in the present petition is rightly denied by the respondent-State and there is no merit in the petition.
7. No other and further submissions are made.
8. Having heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and after considering the facts of the present case, the issue germane in this matter would stand covered by the aforesaid cited two judgments of the Division Bench binding to this Court, wherein, the following proposition of law laid down:
Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:11:46 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8067/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined 8.1. In the case of Ashok Laxmanbhai Parmar (supra), it has been observed and held 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 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."
(emphasis supplied) Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:11:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8067/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined 8.2. In the case of Girdharbhai Muljibhai Eradiya (supra), wherein, after referring the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, it has been observed and held thus:
"4.4 The contention of the petitioners was that when the judgment and award of Labour Court granted them continuity of service and same was confirmed by the higher courts, the benefits arising from Resolution dated 17.10.1988 would be available to them as necessary corollary. The following observations of the Court in Prabhatbhai Mudhwa (supra) in paragraph 5 may be noticed with relevance, "It is an admitted fact fact that the petitioners have served since 1988 upto 31.3.1998; their services came to be terminated and they were reinstated on 13.5.2019 after the judgment and award of labour court, which granted them continuity of service. Therefore, it would necessarily follow that entire period of service of the petitioners from the respective date in the year 1988 till reinstatement or retirement, as the case may be, would have to be counted as continuous either based on actual service rendered or notionally in view of the continuity benefit conferred by the labour court."
4.5 The Court further observed after noticing that the judgment and award of the Labour Court was confirmed by this Court in Special Civil Applications, which were dismissed, "...in para-5 of the impugned communication, the petitioners were specifically denied the benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It was stated that the petitioners would be Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:11:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8067/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined entitled to minimum wages only. In the same way, those petitioners who have retired with effect from 31.7.2017 have also been denied the benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988, which otherwise would have to be granted to them in the facts of the case. Respondent No.2 authority has evidently ignored and disregarded the effect in law required to be given to the judgment and award of the labour court confirmed by this court as above in denying the benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The benefits flowing therefrom have to be accorded their to into account the petitioners taking respective factual matrix of services."
"5. The Division Bench in Ashok Laxmanbhai Parmar (supra), dealt with similar set of facts and the grievance to observe thus, extracting from paragraph 5, "...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." Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:11:46 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8067/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined 5.1 It was further observed that when the workman was forced to leave duties on account of unlawful termination by the employer, the employer cannot take benefit of its own illegal action to deny continuity of service, which was otherwise granted by the lower court."
(emphasis supplied)
9. Even in the aforesaid last decision of the Division Bench of this Court, while rejecting the arguments of the respondent-State, also referred to recent past judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar & Ors. V/s. Union of India reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327 and Jaggo V/s. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826.
10. Thus, in view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and when the stand taken by the respondent-State in the present case is already turned down by the aforesaid two judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court, there is no reason to deviate from such view, which otherwise binding to this Court.
11. In view of the foregoing reasons, I pass the following order.
11.1. This writ petition deserves to be allowed, which is hereby allowed as follow:
Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:11:46 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8067/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined
(i) The respondents are directed to give all consequential benefits of Government Resolution dated 17th October 1988 to the petitioner w.e.f. 14th February 1995 notionally up to 3rd January 2014 and further directed to give the difference of salary from 3rd January 2014 till its payment.
(ii) Once, the aforesaid benefits will be paid by the respondents to the petitioner, as the petitioner is still in service, respondents are directed to pay him regular salary will all service benefits.
(iii) All the arrears shall be paid to the petitioner as early as possible preferably before 31st March 2026, failing which the petitioner is entitled to receive any such arrears amount with 6% interest from 1st April 2026 till its realisation.
12. In view of the foregoing conclusion, the present writ petition is hereby partly-allowed. Rule is made absolute, to the aforesaid extent.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) NILESH Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:11:46 IST 2025