Gujarat High Court
Amibhai Khumabhai Desai (Diya) vs State Of Gujarat on 28 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17745/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17745 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
AMIBHAI KHUMABHAI DESAI (DIYA) & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESENTATIVES for
the Petitioner(s) No. 6
MR PH PATHAK(665) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6.1
MS REENA M KAMANI(6007) for the Petitioner(s) No. 6.1
MR PARTH PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR RB THAKOR(6743) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 28/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Advocate Mr. R. B. Rathod waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Parth Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:23:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17745/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined Patel waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No. 1 - State.
2. With consent of learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
3. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Reena Kamani for the petitioners, learned Advocate Mr. R. B. Rathod for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Parth Patel for respondent No.1-State.
4. The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
"A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit this petition B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ order of directions and be pleased to quash and set aside resolution no 7 dated 15/09/2017 passed by the Diyodar Gram Panchayat to terminate service of the employee of the Diyodar Gram Panchayat.
8(B-1) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the action of the panchayat to discontinue the petitioners from services and be pleased to direct the panchayat to reinstate the petitioners in services with all consequential benefits. 8 (B-2) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent panchayat to pay special cost and compensation to the petitioners Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:23:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17745/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined for mental torcher and for the present litigation. 8 (B-3) pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, the Hon'ble Court the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent panchayat take petitioners in services on their original posts forthwith.
C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order of direction and be please quash and set aside the order/Resolution no Gapam/102017/311/A dated 3/08/20017 and 9/08/2017 passed by the state of Gujarat for termination of service of the petitioners. D) During the pendency of final hearing and disposal of This Special Civil Application be pleased to stay the resolution no 7 dated 15/09/2017 passed by the Diyodar Gram Panchayat and reinstate service of the petitioner in Diyodar Gram Panchayat. E) During the pendency of final hearing and disposal of This Special Civil Application be pleased to stay termination of the petitioners in Diyodar Gram Panchayat.
F) Your Lordships be pleased to pass any other and further order as may be deemed fit in favor of the petitioner."
5. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE APPEAR TO BE THAT:
5.1. The petitioner No.1 was appointed to the post of clerk in Diyodar Gram Panchayat on 20th July 1989 and he was Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:23:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17745/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined regularized by the respondent authority on 29th September 1993. His pay scale was fixed as per the G.C.S.C. Revision of Pay Rules.
5.2. The petitioner No.2 was appointed to the post of peon in Umarala Gram Panchayat on 12th March 1977 on compassionate appointment in place of his deceased father and he was regularized in service by the respondent authority on 12th March 1977.
5.3. The petitioner No.3 was appointed to the post of peon in Diyodar Gram Panchayat on 6th August 1985 and his pay fixation was carried out in accordance with the G.C.S.C. Revision of Pay Rules. He was regularized in service on 29th September 1993.
5.4. The petitioner No.4 was appointed to the post of clerk in Diyodar Gram Panchayat on 1st April 1993 and he was regularized by the respondent authority on 29th September 1993.
5.5. The petitioner No.5 was appointed to the post of clerk in Diyodar Gram Panchayat on 29th December 2005 and he was granted the benefits of the 5th Pay Commission with effect Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:23:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17745/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined from 1st January 2011. He was regularized in service on 31st December 2010.
5.6. The petitioner No.6 was appointed to the post of peon in Diyodar Gram Panchayat on 31st January 2004 and he was granted the benefits of the 5th Pay Commission with effect from 1st January 2011. He was regularized in service on 9th January 2009.
5.7. On 3rd August 2017 and 9th August 2017, the State Government, Panchayat, Rural Housing and Rural Development Department issued Resolution No. Gapama/102017/311/K dated 3rd August 2017, directing all D.D.Os. to terminate the services of employees illegally appointed by various Gram Panchayats.
5.8. It is a case of petitioners that respondent - Diyodar Gram Panchayat wrongly interpreted the above Government Resolution dated 9th August 2017 and relying upon such misinterpretation, passed Resolution No. 7 dated 15th September 2017, whereby, the services of all employees of Diyodar Gram Panchayat who had already been regularized were terminated.
Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:23:15 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17745/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined 5.9. Aggrieved by the said action and the impugned resolution, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.
6. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:
6.1. Learned Advocate Ms. Kamani appearing for the petitioners, would humbly submit that the order of terminating the services of the petitioners was in violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, no procedure has been followed by respondent Panchayat before terminating their services. So, such action of the respondent Panchayat requires to be quashed and set aside; thereby, petitioners require to be reinstated in service, except Petitioner No. 6, who died during the pendency of this matter and Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 already crossed their age of superannuation.
6.2. Learned Advocate Ms. Kamani would further submit that at the time of passing of impugned termination order, all the petitioners were regularized in their services by respondent Panchayat and Service Book of each petitioner placed before this Court, not disputed by respondent that it is got prepared.
It is submitted that when petitioners were regular employees of Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:23:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17745/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined Gram Panchayat, their services could not have been terminated without following due process of law on the ground that their initial appointment was illegal.
6.3. Learned Advocate Ms. Kamani would further submit that action of the respondent was in pursuance to the Government Resolution dated 9th August 2017 issued by Panchayat, Rural Housing & Rural Development Department, thus, terminated the services of the petitioners, albeit without following due process of law. It is respectfully submitted that subsequent to aforesaid Resolution, the very Department came out with Circular dated 6th October 2017, whereby, it has been decided that before terminating the services of employees of Panchayat, in pursuance to the aforesaid Resolution, Panchayat requires to follow due process of law. It is respectfully submitted that when State itself has clarified its Resolution, same shall have to be given its effect by Panchayat, which in fact not given by Panchayat, having not reviewed its impugned decision. 6.4. Lastly, learned Advocate Ms. Kamani would respectfully submit that Petitioner No. 6 having died during pendency of this matter and as per his service record, he worked for 2004 to 2017, thereby, served for about 13 years with the respondent - Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:23:15 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17745/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined Gram Panchayat, whatsoever retirement benefits available to the legal heirs of Petitioner No. 6 be granted by respondent Panchayat, in accordance with law. Likewise, case of Petitioner No.2 & 3 may also be considered for granting retiral benefits by Panchayat.
6.5. Making the above submissions, learned Advocate Ms. Kamani would request this Court to allow the present writ petition.
7. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4:
7.1. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. Rathod, appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4, mainly Panchayat, would respectfully submit that in pursuance to the aforesaid Resolution dated 9th August 2017 passed by State, respondent Panchayat has acted upon it by terminating the services of petitioners, having found that their initial services were illegal. It is respectfully submitted that when initial appointment of petitioners was without following due process of law, there is no reason to observe any principle of natural justice, inasmuch as, there is no indefeasible right available with the petitioners to claim any continuance of service.
7.2. Learned Advocate Mr. Rathod would further respectfully Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:23:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17745/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined submit that in pursuance to the aforesaid Circular dated 6th October 2017, it was advised to all Panchayat to follow due process of law before affecting the termination of such employees, but, in the present case, the order of termination was already affected before the aforesaid Circular; thereby, there is no fault can be found with the respondent Panchayat. 7.3. Lastly, learned Advocate Mr. Rathod would submit that even if this Court arrives at conclusion that termination of services of petitioners was illegal and without following due process of law i.e. in violation of principle of natural justice, liberty may be granted to the respondent Panchayat to follow due process of law before passing any final order against the petitioners. 7.4. Making the above submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Rathod would request this Court to dismiss the present Writ Petition.
8. SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT NO.1-STATE:
8.1. Likewise, learned AGP Mr. Patel essentially adopts the arguments so canvassed by learned Advocate Mr. Rathod appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Nonetheless, learned AGP Mr. Patel would respectfully submit that in pursuance to the Circular dated 6th October 2017, Panchayat requires to Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:23:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17745/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined follow due process of law before terminating the service of any employee.
8.2. Making the above submissions, learned AGP Mr. Patel would request this Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
9. No other and further submissions are being made.
10. Having heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, following facts emerge:
10.1. The record suggests that all petitioners were appointed in the service of Panchayat at given point of time and by passage of time, their services were regularized, inasmuch as, they were drawing regular pay scale at the time of their termination by respondent - Panchayat.
10.2. The State thought it fit to issue aforesaid Resolution, thereby, directed all Panchayats to terminate the services of all illegally appointed persons on various posts of Panchayat. Nonetheless, after issuance of such Government Resolution dated 9th August 2017, immediately a need arises to issue Circular by State, as it appears that in the aforesaid Resolution, there was no procedure envisaged for termination of service of respective employees who alleged to have been illegally appointed in the Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:23:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17745/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined service of Panchayat. Thus, vide above referred Circular dated 6th October 2017, a clarification issued to all Panchayat;
thereby, they were advised to terminate the services of such illegally appointed employees by following due process of law. 10.3. Undisputedly, before affecting the impugned termination order upon all the petitioners, no such procedure undertaken by respondent Panchayat and vide its Resolution dated 15th of September 2017, services of all petitioners were terminated.
11. Thus, in view of the aforesaid undisputed facts emerges from the record, would suggest that before affecting the order of termination upon the petitioners, respondent Panchayat has not followed and as such not observed any principle of natural justice, rather not followed due process of law when passed impugned termination order of petitioners who were regular employees of Panchayat, may be appointed illegally as per the case of Panchayat.
12. Having considered the aforesaid aspect and after appreciating the submissions canvassed by learned Advocates for the respective parties, I am of the view that decision of termination of services of petitioners taken by respondent Panchayat, Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:23:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17745/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined requires to be quashed and set aside, solely on the ground that it is in violation of principle of natural justice and having not passed without any due process of law qua petitioners.
13. When the decision of respondent Panchayat terminating services of petitioners found to be illegal and not sustainable in law, then it requires to be quashed and set aside, thus, it is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, all the petitioners require to be reinstated in the service of respondent Panchayat.
14. It is informed by learned Ms. Reena Kamani for the petitioners that by passage of time Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 crossed the age of their superannuation and Petitioner No. 6 died during the pendency of this petition. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, there is no question/need arise to reinstate them in their respective services in the Panchayat.
15. At the same time, when decision of respondent Panchayat interfered with by this Court, and having found that it was in violation of principle of natural justice and as such without following due process of law, it is always open for the respondents, including respondent Panchayat, to follow due process of law and after giving an opportunity of hearing to Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:23:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17745/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined petitioners concern, appropriate reasoned order may be passed by the respondent authority in regards to the service conditions of the petitioners, except Petitioner No. 6, who already died during the pendency of this petition.
16. As far as Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are concern, though they crossed their age of superannuation, then if permissible in law, respondent - Panchayat after following due process of law, can pass appropriate order in regards to their services condition. In a case where, no such due procedure of law permissible to be initiated against them having already crossed age of superannuation, in that eventuality, whatever retiral benefits if permissible in law and receivable by them, the respondents shall have to consider it and release it in their favour.
17. So far as the case of Petitioner No. 6 concern being died, it is open for the legal heirs of Petitioner No. 6 to claim retirement benefits of deceased Petitioner No. 6 with the respondent Panchayat. If it is permissible and available in law to grant such benefit to the legal heirs of deceased employee-Petitioner No. 6, same shall be considered sympathetically by respondent Panchayat and accordingly pay to them. This direction issued on a purely humanitarian ground, considering the peculiar Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:23:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17745/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined facts and circumstances of the present case as petitioner No.6 died during pendency of this petition then, same shall not be cited as precedent in any other matter.
18. In view of the foregoing reasons, respondent Panchayat is hereby directed to reinstate the services of the petitioner Nos. 1, 4 and 5 on or before 15th December 2025, failing which they will entitle to claim salary from 16th December 2025 from respondents.
19. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, the present Writ Petition is partly allowed. Rule made absolute, to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) NILESH Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 21:23:15 IST 2025