Gujarat High Court
Bharatbhai Ramjibhai Vaza vs Gujarat Water Supply And Sewerage Board on 18 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10627 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
BHARATBHAI RAMJIBHAI VAZA
Versus
GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SAMIR B GOHIL(5718) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 18/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate for the respondent waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard at length for final hearing.
2. The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner for seeking the following reliefs:
"A) Directing the respondents to grant benefit of fixed pay w.e.f 25.4.1992 instead of 25.6.1996 and to grant benefit of Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:37:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined regular pay scale w.e.f 25.4.1997 as per GR dt. 17.10.1988 and further directing the respondents to revise his pay scale and further directing them to pay all consequential benefits including pension and gratuity as per Government Resolution dt.17.10.88 with 8% arrears.
B) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the respondents may be directed to fix and pay pension to the petitioner on the basis of last drawn pay as per GR dt.
17.10.88 after his retirement on 31.8.2020. C) To grant such and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper."
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 joined service as Watchman-daily wager on 24.4.1987. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 1.7.1989. The petitioner challenged his termination before the Labour Court in Ref.(L.C.J) No. 1804/1990. By the award dated 19.7.1995, the Labour Court allowed the reference and ordered for reinstatement with continuity of service. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated in service as per the above award on 12.5.1995. It is further Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:37:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined the case of the petition in this petition that thereafter by the order dated 25.6.1995, the petitioner was appointed in fixed pay as per Government Resolution dated 17.10.88. In fact, the petitioner was entitled to be appointed in fixed pay on 24.4.1992 when he had completed 5 years of total service as per GR date 17.10.1988. The petitioner is due to retire from service on 31.08.2020. Therefore, the petitioner made representation on 4.10.2019 requesting the respondents to grant him benefits of GR dated 17.10.1988 from 24.4.1992 and pay all consequential benefits. It is further the case of the petition in this petition that in response to the above representation, the respondent no.2 vide letter dated 30.11.2019 asked the respondent no.3 to send proposal with details. In response to the above letter date 30.11.2019, the respondent no.3 vide letter dated 30.12.2019 forwarded proposal/details of the petitioner wherein it has been stated that the petitioner joined service on 24.4.1987 and he was granted benefits of fixed pay of Rs.750/- w.e.f. 25.6.1996.
Thereafter, the respondents have not taken any final decision in the matter and the petitioner is due to retire from service on 31.8.2020. Hence, the present petition has been preferred.
4. Heard Mr. Samir Gohil, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:37:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-
5. Mr. Samir Gohil, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner had joined service as daily wage-driver on 24.4.1987 and he completed 10 years of total service on 25.4.1997 without break as per Section 25B of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and as per GR dated 17.10.1988, daily wager having completed 10 years of service will be entitled to permanency and other terminal benefits such as pension and gratuity. In this case, the petitioner had completed total 10 years of service on 25.04.1997. However, he was granted benefit of regular pay scale w.e.f 29.6.2004. He has further submitted that the petitioner was granted benefit of regular pay scale belatedly which resulted into gross monitory loss and loss of pensionable service and as per the law laid down by the Division bench in the case of Executive Engineer Panchayat (Maa And M) Department vs. Samudabhai Jyotibhai Bhedi reported in 2017 (4) GLR 2952, a daily rated employee having completed 10 years of service as per Section 25B of I.D Act is entitled to get benefit of regular pay scale and other retirement benefits such as pension and gratuity. He has further submitted that in view of the earlier order dated 01.07.1989 passed by the Labour Court in reference LCJ No. 1804 of 1990, the Labour Court has allowed the reference Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:37:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined and ordered for reinstatement with continuity of service and thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated in service as per the above award on 12.05.1985. He has submitted that the present petition is required to be allowed accordingly, considering the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench, which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:-
6. Per contra, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has strongly opposed the submissions made at the bar by learned advocate for the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner herein was working purely on temporary, ad hoc and daily wage basis depending upon the availability of work and funds. He has further submitted that the petitioner was not offered work on any permanent and sanctioned post after following due procedure of recruitment and, therefore, he was not entitled to any relief. He has further submitted that the petitioner was not offered the work w.e.f. 01.07.1989 due to non availability of work and, thereafter, the petitioner has approached the Labour Couert by way of filing reference being Reference No..1804 of 1990 praying for various benefits and the same was allowed by the Labour Court on 19.07.1995 in part by way of awarding reinstatement with continuity and 25% back wages. He has further submitted Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:37:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined that subsequently, the petitioner was reinstated in service as a daily wager. He has further submitted that in view of the G.R. dated 17.10.1988, the petitioner was getting benefit of minimum pay scale for a period of five year on completion of 240 days continuously in a year and thereafter, the petitioner has been granted benefit of regular pay scale w.e.f. 13.10.2000 on completion of total service of 10 years as per provisions of G.R. dated 17.10.1988. He has further submitted that petitioner who is holding a qualification of SSC pass was placed in establishment of Work Charge [Class III] and he was given a benefit of pay scale of Rs.5200-20220 and Grade Pay 1900 with effect from 29.11.2011. He has further submitted that another order in that regard was passed on 14.7.12. He has further submitted that the petitioner who attained the age of superannuation on 31.2.2020 is released various retiral benefits as per the rules and regulations framed by the board. He has further submitted that therefore, the petitioner cannot now claim any injustice and no further relief can be granted. Hence, he has prayed to dismiss this petition.
IN REJOINDER SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-
7. In rejoinder, Mr. Samir Gohil, learned advocate for the petitioner has, in response to the arguments advanced by Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:37:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, drawn the attention of this Court towards the affidavit-in-rejoinder and copy of the award, and has submitted that in view of these facts, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench and, therefore, though the retirement benefit is required to be granted on the completion of the service, which is required to be granted from the year 1996, but no benefit has been granted and the respondent has granted the benefits from some later date and, therefore, he has submitted that the benefits are required to be granted accordingly in view of the fact that the petitioner has now retired.
ANALYSIS:-
8. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. It is not in dispute that the learned Labour Court has allowed the Reference of the petitioner and granted the prayers in Reference by directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with 25% back wages and also by giving continuity of service to the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner was appointed on 24.04.1987. Therefore, considering the G.R. dated 17.10.1988, the petitioner is required to be given regular pay scale after five/ten years accordingly. It also transpires that the judgment which is relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner is squarely applicable to Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:37:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined the facts of the present case. Therefore, it is required to reproduce relevant paragraphs 1 to 13 of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Samudabhai Jyotibhai Bhedi (supra) for understanding the controversy involved in that matter as well as to compare the facts of the matter, the said relevant paragraphs are as follows:
"1. This appeal is filed by the Dahod district panchayat challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 07.08.2015 passed in Special Civil Application No.67 of 2012. At the center of the controversy is the right of a daily wager employee who was later on, as per the Government Resolution, regularized in service to receive pension. Learned Single Judge having directed the panchayat and State authorities to grant such pension, the panchayat is in appeal before us. To appreciate the controversy, we may refer to the relevant facts in brief.
2. The employee original petitioner joined services of the panchayat as the labourer on daily wage basis on 28.05.1977. According to him, since then he was employed virtually and uninterruptedly and all throughout the period and in the process had completed more than 10 years of continuous service as provided HC- NIC Page 2 of 12 Created On Fri Aug 18 03:48:49 IST 2017 C/LPA/1439/2015 JUDGMENT in section 25B of Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:37:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined the Industrial Disputes Act. In other words, in all those years, the petitioner had put in more than 240 days of actual work. On the basis of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, his service was also regularized with effect from 31.01.2006. He retired on crossing the age of superannuation on 31.01.2009. According to him, he had completed 22 years of continuous service which should qualify for pensionary benefits. Since such benefits were not granted, he approached the High Court by filing the said writ petition interalia praying for a direction that the respondents should pay to the petitioner pension with interest.
3. The stand of the respondents emerging from the record is that to receive pension, an employee must have put in a minimum 10 years of service. Since the petitioner was regularized only in the year 2006 and retired in December, 2009, he had put in barely three years of regular service. Since regular service is way below minimum 10 years of service required for pension, his claim for pension was rejected.
4. Before the learned Single Judge, the petitioner relied on the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and a subsequent clarificatory circular dated 30.05.1989 to contend that even service prior to the regularization as long as the years during which the Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:37:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined employee had completed continuous one year of service, would qualify for pensionary benefits. Learned Single Judge accepted the contention and by the impugned judgment, directed the respondents to consider the past service of the petitioner rendered as daily wager for the purpose of pensionable service provided in a particular year he had completed 240 days of service. The pension was to be released within specified time with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. It is this judgment that the panchayat administration has challenged before us in this Letters Patent Appeal.
5. Facts are not seriously in dispute. According to the petitioner, he had completed in all close to 22 years of service with the Panchayat, during which, he had worked for more than 240 days in each year. Even if this claim of having put in 240 days of actual service in each of the 22 years is subject to verification, even the original respondents do not dispute that the petitioner had completed far more than 10 years of such service. It was precisely because of this reason granting benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, he was regularized in services on 31.03.2006. From such date onwards till he retired, the employee had concededly put in just over three years of service. The crucial question therefore is would the past service of completed years prior to regularization would count towards pensionary benefits.Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:37:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined
6. As is well known, under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, the Government decided to grant benefits of regularization and permanency to daily rated workers who had completed more than 10 years of actual service prior to such date, of course subject to certain conditions. One of the clauses in the said Government Resolution was that the benefit of regularization would be available to those workmen who had completed more than 10 years of service considering the provisions of section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act. They would get benefits of regular pay scale and other allowances, pension, gratuity, regular leaves etc. They would retire on crossing age of 60 years. That the period of regular service shall be pensionable.
7. This Government Resolution led to several doubts. The Government itself therefore came up with a clarificatory circular dated 30.05.1989, in which, several queries which were likely to arise were clarified and answered. Clause6 of this circular is crucial for our purpose. The question raised was that an employee who had put in more than 10 years of service as on 01.10.1988, would be granted the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. In that context, the doubt was whether for the purpose of pension, the past service of completed years prior to regularization would be considered or whether the pensionable service would be confined to the service put in by the Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:37:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined employee after he is actually regularized. The answer to this query was that those employees who had put in more than 10 years of service as per Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 would get the benefit of pension. For such purpose, those years during which the employee had fulfilled the provisions of section 25B of Industrial Disputes Act, such years would qualify for pensionary benefit.
8. Two things immediately emerge from this clarification. First is that the query raised was precisely what is the dispute before us and second is that the clarification of the Government was unambiguous and provided that every year during which the employee even prior to his regularization had put in continuous service by fulfilling the requirement of having worked for not less than 240 days as provided under section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, would count towards qualifying service for pension. In view of the clarification by the government itself, there is no scope for any further debate. The petitioner was correct in contending that having put in more than 10 years of continuous service as a labourer in the past, he had a right to receive pension upon superannuation. This is precisely what the learned Single Judge has directed, further enabling the employer to verify as to in how many years he had put in such service and then to compute his pension.Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:37:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined
9. Learned counsel Shri Munshaw for the Panchayat however drew our attention to some other clauses of the said clarificatory circular dated 30.05.1989. None of these clauses have a direct bearing on the controversy at hand. These clauses merely refer to from which point of time such benefits may be available. It may be that benefits of regular services such as regular pay scale, leave, gratuity and pensionary benefits may be available only after regularization of an employee. However, this does not mean that his past continuous service would be wiped out for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The stand of the authorities that only that service which the employee had put in after actual order of regularization would count for pension is thus in conflict with the Government circulars itself.
10. The issue can be looked from slightly different angle.
As it likely to happen in many cases and
appears to have happened in the present case, actual
order of regularization may not be passed immediately
upon an employee having put in 10 years of continuous service for variety of reasons such as inaction on the part of the employee to press for such benefits, verification needed at the hands of the administration and sometimes, sheer inertia may delay actual regularization. Would that mean, the benefit of pension would be denied to an employee because after Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:37:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined the belated regularization he did not have sufficient time to render 10 years of qualifying service? The answer has to be in the negative.
11. In the past, same or similar issues have traveled to the Division Benches in Letters Patent Appeals. Learned Single Judge in case of Tribhovanbhai Jerambhai v. Dy. Executive Engineer, Sub-
Division, R & B Deptt. & Anr. reported in 1998 (2)
GLH 1, held that once a daily rated
workman is treated to be permanent in terms of
resolution dated 17.10.1988, his entire continuous service
from the date of entry till retirement including his
services rendered prior to the date of his
regularization has to be taken into consideration for the
purpose of computing pension or for making pension
available to the employee. This decision was
carried in appeal by the employer before the Division
Bench. The Division Bench by order dated 04.04.2003
noted that the appeal had become time
barred. Even on merits, the Division Bench was not
inclined to take a different view.
12. In case of Surendranagar Dist. Panchayat
and Anr. v. Umarkhan Alikhan Malek and
ors., Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated
29.03.2016 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal
No.2047 of 2004, considered the issue where
the employee had sought pensionary benefits having
worked from the years 1978 to 1991. The learned
Page 14 of 16
Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:37:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
Single Judge applying the formula of section 25B of
the Industrial Disputes Act held that the employee had
put in continuous service for more than 10 years
as a daily wager. He was entitled to
benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988
including the benefits of pension. The
administration had merely contended that the workman had not put in actual 10 years of service after regularization before he can seek pensionary benefits.
13. Yet again, the Division Bench of this Court in case of Chhaganbhai Ranchhodbhai Rathod v. Dy Executive Engineer, vide judgment dated 06.08.1998 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.1495 of 1997, took up the issue of pensionary benefits of a daily wager in terms of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The controversy was whether the employee had put in 10 years of service during which he had worked for not less than 240 days in every year. Learned Single Judge having rejected the petition, the employee had filed the said Letters Patent Appeal. The Division Bench applying the provisions of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, held that the workman had put in such service of a minimum 10 years and consequently granted the benefits of pension in terms of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Here also the authorities had not raised a contention which is sought to be raised before us.Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:37:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined
14. Be that as it may, in view of the discussion above, we find no merits in this appeal. The same is therefore dismissed."
CONCLUSION:
9. Considering the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, which is binding to this Court, I am of the view that the present case, also the prayers prayed in the present petition is required to be allowed. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed in terms of paragraph 11(A) of the present petition. Let the respondents may do needful to consider the claim of the petitioner herein by considering the various benefits in view of the abovementioned observation and consider the prayers in the present petition accordingly and grant the benefits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight weeks from today. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of as allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) DIWAKAR SHUKLA Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:37:23 IST 2025