Gujarat High Court
Arvindsinh Dashratsinh Rathod vs State Of Gujarat on 10 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6752/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6752 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
ARVINDSINH DASHRATSINH RATHOD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TR MISHRA(483) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DR. POOJA ASHAR, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1-STATE
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 10/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP for the respondent waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent-State. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard at length for final hearing.
2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner for seeking the following reliefs:
"(A) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue an order, direction and/or writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 01:50:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6752/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined respondents to grant the benefit of Class.III pay-scale of Rs.950/1500 to the petitioner from 1997 the date on which the petitioner has completed 7 years of service which has been granted to other similarly situated employees in SCA No. 12851/2000 and be further pleased to direct the respondent to grant the said benefit from 1 July, 1997 the date on which the petitioner completes 7 years of service from the date of passing SSC examination;
(B) That Your Lordships be further pleased to direct the respodent to grant the arrears arising out of the less payment of wages and be further pleased to direct the respondents to revise the wage of Rs.950/1500 in view of the recommendation and acceptance of the Pay Commission reports;
(C) Direct the respondents to pay the arrears with 12% interest thereon;
(D) Any other and such further relief as the Hon'ble court deem fit and proper in the interes together with costs;"
FACTS OF THE CASE:-
3. Brief facts as stated in the memo of the petition are as under:
3.1 It is the case of the petitioner in this petition that the petitioner was appointed in the services of the respondent Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 01:50:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6752/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined vide order dated 6-8-1982 on daily-wage basis. The petitioner was subsequently appointed as Peon-cum-Driver. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that the posting order was issued appointing the petitioner in the scale of Rs.750-12-870-EB-14-940+Rs.100 as Special Allowance as Peon-
cum-Driver. The petitioner was issued another office order appointing the petitioner in Class.III cadre as Driver in the scale of Rs.3050-75-4590. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that the petitioner passed SSC examination in June, 1990. He also passed HSC examination in 2008 and has also passed CCC course of Computer concept in 2010.
3.2 It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that similar petition was filed being Special Civil Application No. 12851 of 2000 by one Shri B.R.Kazi and others. The said petition was allowed vide order dated 21-1-2013. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that the petitioner has joined services on 5-8-1982 and Shri B.R.Kazi joined the duties on 16-8-1982. Shri Kazi and others have been granted the scale of Rs.950/1500 from 16-8-1989 vide order dated 20- 5-2013. As the petitioner was not the party in the said petition, he has been denied the aforesaid benefits. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that the petitioner passed SSC examination in June, 1990 and on Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 01:50:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6752/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined completion of 7 years of service in 1997 petitioner was entitled for the scale of Rs.950/1500 which has been denied to the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that had the petitioner joined as co-petitioner in SCA No.12851/2000, the petitioner also would have got the benefit of Class.III scale on completion of 7 years service from the date of passing of SSC examination. The petitioner is having better qualification and has passed even HSC and CCC also. Therefore, non-grant of Class.III scale to the petitioner amounts to irrational discrimination. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that petitioner made representation and also gave in writing but there is no response. Hence, the present petition has been preferred.
4. Heard Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner and Dr. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:- 5.1 Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that similarly situated persons to present petitioner was given benefit of the Government Resolution dated 30.10.1991. He has further submitted that the petitioner serving as driver in class-III, was initially appointed in the year 1982 and thereafter, in the year 1990, he has cleared Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 01:50:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6752/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined the SSC Examination and, therefore, in the year 1997, he was appointed as peon-cum-driver and till that, the appointment of the petitioner was on daily wage basis and thereafter, in the year 1997, by order dated 03.06.1997, the petitioner was appointed in the pay scale of Rs.750-12-870- EB-14-940 + Rs.100/- as special allowance as peon-cum-driver. Thereafter, another office order on 24.12.2008 was issued appointing the petitioner in Class.III cadre as driver in the pay-scale of Rs.3050-75-4590. He has further submitted that the petitioner has passed SSC examination in the year 1990 and thereafter, the petitioner has also passed HSC Examination in 2008 and has also passed CCC Course on Computer Concept in the year 2010. He has further submitted that the petitioner is discriminated in the matter of grant of Class.III scale on having passed SSC Examination. He has further submitted that a similar petition was filed before this Hon'ble Court being SCA No. 12851 of 2000, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2013.
5.2 He has submitted that in view of the various Government Resolutions by the departments, it was provided that as per the seniority, those persons, who have passed SSC examination have been granted time-scale of pay pertaining to Class.III cadre. He has further submitted that Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 01:50:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6752/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined the Government Resolution dated 01.05.1991 with regard to grant of pay-scale of Class.III employees is also very clear on this aspect. He has further submitted that at the time of filing of this petition in the year 2014, the petitioner was aged about 55 years and he was likely to retire within three years from filing of the present petition and now, he has already retired from service and resultant effect is that, if the benefits, which are mentioned in the G.R., given to the class-III employees are not granted to the petitioner for the period from 1997 to 2008, then the petitioner would face irreparable loss in the matter of retirement benefits like P.F., Gratuity and Pension etc. and, therefore, the present petitioner was filed and now, he has fairly submitted that the petitioner has received the benefits on his retirement, but as per the pay scale given by the respondent-authority and not as per the case which is pleaded in the present petition by the petitioner and, therefore, he has prayed that appropriate order may be passed by allowing the present petition by considering that necessary benefits are required to be granted to the present petitioner.
5.3 He has also referred to affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the petitioner, whereby he has relied on some orders passed by the very department by granting benefit to the similarly situated persons. He has also relied on the orders passed by Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 01:50:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6752/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined the PWD Department and District Development Officer, Rajkot whereby the benefits have been granted to the daily wagers who have passed SSC Examination. Therefore, he has submitted that appropriate relief may be granted by considering the fact that now the petitioner has superannuated and necessary benefits may be granted for which he is entitled.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:- 6.1 Per contra, Dr. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent - State has strongly disputed the submissions made at the bar by learned advocate for the petitioner and has submitted that case of the petitioner is not identical to the case of other employees. She has submitted that the petitioner has cleared the SSC Examination in the year 1990 and the said Government Resolution dated 30.10.1991 of which the petitioner is seeking benefit is of the year 1991 and the petition is filed in the year 2014 and, therefore, the present petition is not tenable in the eyes of law and barred by delay and latches. She has submitted that in fact, the petitioner was appointed same way as daily wager in the year 1992, and thus, he would have completed 7 years in the year 1991, but it is not in dispute that the petitioner has passed the SSC Examination only in the year 1990, and which is requirement of Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 01:50:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6752/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined Government Resolution dated 30.10.1991 and, therefore, the petitioner was become entitled to get benefits of G.R. dated 30.10.1991 from the year 1990 only. Therefore, though the petitioner has passed the SSC Examination in the year 1990 and after issuance of the G.R. dated 30.10.1991, the petitioner has never applied before the State Government to avail the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 30.10.1991 and the petitioner has never claimed any benefit at the relevant point of time or any time after G.R. dated 30.10.1991 came into force till the year 1997, when he was appointed as peon-cum-driver. She has further contended that the petition is not having sought the benefit of G.R. dated 30.10.1991 at the relevant point in time when he was eligible, can safely be said to have forgone his right to avail the benefits of the said G.R. dated 30.10.1991 and the petitioner after lapse of more than 23 year at the fag end of his career cannot seek benefits of G.R. dated 30.10.1991, which is to be considered as huge delay of over 2 decades. 6.2 She has further submitted that petitioner has relied on the order of similarly situated persons to him in the present petition as well as the rejoinder-affidavit, are not helpful to the petitioner looking to the facts of the present case. She has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner as on date is functioning as a driver which is a class-3 post and Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 01:50:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6752/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined the petitioner as on date when he seeks the benefit G.R. dated 30.10.1991 retrospectively after 2 decades is serving on a class-III post which circumstance is starkly different from the case of which the petitioner seeks parity. 6.3 In support of her contentions, she has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.S. Balu vs. State of Kerala reported in 2009 (0) AIJEL-SC 42751, more particularly para: 17.
6.4 In view of the above, she has submitted that the present petition is required to be dismissed as the petitioner cannot claim any relief as such a belated stage. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:-
7.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. Essentially, petitioner's grievance is to get the grade pay for the period from the year 1997 till the year 2008 and for that, the petitioner has relied on the Government Resolution dated 30.10.1991, which provides that the person, who is seeking benefits should clear the SSC examination. The petitioner has admittedly cleared the examination in the year 1990 and, therefore, in the year 1997 he was appointed as peon-cum-driver and till then from the year 1982 to 1997, the petitioner was serving as daily wager. Thereafter, on Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 01:50:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6752/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined clearance of HSC examination, new pay fixation was done. It transpires that when the petitioner has filed the present position in the year 2014, he was undisputedly aged about 55 years old and as per his own averments, he was going to retire within 3 years from the date of filing of the present petition. Therefore, there is unexplained delay of more than 23 years as the petitioner is relying on the Government Resolution of the year 1991. It also transpires from the record that the petitioner has never ventilated any grievance or claim on the basis of the G.R. of the year 1991 by making any representation or application before the concerned authority. It is relevant to note that the present petition is filed at such belated stage after a delay of 2 decades. 7.2 In the other similarly situated persons, though there are benefits given to the other persons, in the present case also, the petitioner has received benefit; first by way of appointment at the post of driver-cum-peon in the year 1997 and thereafter, further receiving higher grade pay in the year 2008. Therefore, when the petitioner has not availed the remedy at the relevant point of time and now, he is seeking the benefit of pay scale of class-III post from the particular period to particular period without claiming the benefits at the relevant point of time, now it cannot be considered by giving retrospective effect; more particularly the orders which Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 01:50:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6752/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined are relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner is not squarely applicable to the facts of the present case as facts of those case are different from the facts of the present case. The persons who are subsequently given the orders; their facts are also different; like service tenure, date of appointment and age of those persons, etc. 7.3 It is fruitful to refer the judgments cited by learned AGP for the respondent-State in the case of S.S. Balu (supra), more particularly para: 17, which reads thus:
"17. It is also well settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". Government Order was issued on 15.1.2002. Appellants did not file any writ application questioning the legality and validity thereof. Only after the writ petitions filed by others were allowed and State of Kerala preferred an appeal there against, they impleaded themselves as party respondents. It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment. It is, thus, not possible for us to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the Commission to appoint the appellants at this stage.
In New Delhi Minicipal Council v. Pan Singh and Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 278, this Court held:Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 01:50:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6752/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined "16. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. The respondents herein filed a writ petition after 17 years. They did not agitate their grievances for a long time. They, as noticed herein, did not claim parity with the 17 workmen at the earliest possible opportunity. They did not implead themselves as parties even in the reference made by the State before the Industrial Tribunal. It is not their case that after 1982, those employees who were employed or who were recruited after the cut-off date have been granted the said scale of pay.
After such a long time, therefore, the writ petitions could not have been entertained even if they are similarly situated. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the court after a long time. Delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction."
{See also Virender Chaudhary vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation & Ors. [2008 (15) SCALE 67]}"
7.4 Considering this judgment, in the present case also, there is gross delay of more than 20 years in ventilating such grievance and as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the delay defeats equity. When the Government Resolution is published in the year 1991, the petitioner could have Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 01:50:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6752/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined approached the authority by pleading his case which he has not done till the year 2014. Merely, because some benefits are given to some other persons, whose facts are different, does not entitle the petitioner to claim the benefits, and that too after much delay and, therefore, the present petition is required to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches and also considering the fact that petitioner is already serving in class-III post and, therefore, as such no relief as prayed for in the present petition can be granted in favour of the petitioner in view of the above-mention discussions. I found no merit in the case of the present petition and, therefore, the present petition is required to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) DIWAKAR SHUKLA Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 01:50:30 IST 2025