Gujarat High Court
Sadhna Vidya Mandal Through President, ... vs State Of Gujarat on 23 September, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10010/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10010 of 2025
==========================================================
SADHNA VIDYA MANDAL THROUGH PRESIDENT, SARLABEN
VASANTLAL JOSHI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. SHAILI A KAPADIA(3453) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA PATHAK, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 23/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Arpit Kapadia for learned Advocate Ms. Shaili Kapadia for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Aditya Pathak for the respondent-State.
2. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr. Pathak waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents.
3. By way of this petition, the petitioner-Trust challenges an order passed by the State Government through the Education Department dated 19.04.2025 and consequential order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the District Education Officer, Bharuch, more particularly whereby the State was seeking to recover an amount of Rs.80,24,478/- from the petitioner- Trust, as having been paid to an employee, on account of the penalty of Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:02:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10010/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined dismissal imposed upon the said employee having been set aside by a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and as confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court.
4. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Kapadia and learned AGP Mr. Pathak and having perused the documents on record, it would appear that the Hon'ble Division Bench, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 386 of 2021 vide judgment dated 31.07.2024, whereby the petitioner-Institution had sought to challenge judgment of the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, dated 26.02.2021 in Special Civil Application No. 11134 of 2004, whereby orders passed by the Gujarat Higher Secondary School Services Tribunal, Ahmedabad in an appeal as well as in a review application dated 23.03.2000 and 10.04.2001, respectively, had been set aside, had been confirmed. The issue was with regard to dismissal of an employee and whereas, it would appear that the order of dismissal was challenged before the Tribunal, the same had been confirmed by the Tribunal and whereas even a review application filed by the employee had also been rejected and whereas vide the decision referred to hereinabove, the learned Co-ordinate Bench, in a challenge by the employee, had set aside the orders passed by the learned Tribunal.
Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:02:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10010/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined 4.1 It would appear that the judgment and order passed by the learned
Co-ordinate Bench had been challenged by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Division Bench and vide the judgment referred to hereinabove, the Hon'ble Division Bench, while confirming the decision of the learned Co-ordinate Bench, had directed that consequential benefits to the employee, should be paid within a certain time period and whereas, it was clarified that in the event of an inter-se dispute as regards the burden of payment of dues, the State Government was directed to make appropriate payment and whereas liberty was left open in favour of the State to adjust/recover such amount from the petitioner-Trust. It would appear that the order impugned in the present petition, i.e. order dated 19.04.2025, is an order consequential to the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench inasmuch as, while an amount of Rs. 80,24,478/- had been paid to the employee, the State had sought to recover the same from the petitioner-Institution.
4.2 It would further appear to this Court that before passing of the order impugned, the State while it had not afforded any opportunity to the present petitioner, it would also clearly appear that the State had not come to any specific conclusion that the amount of back-wages/ arrears / retiral benefits, paid to the employee on account of the order of termination Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:02:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10010/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined being set aside, was on account of a deliberate error/malice on the part of the petitioner-Trust. To this Court it would appear that the State, before concluding that the amount paid to the employee is to be recovered from the petitioner-Institution, was required to come to a conclusion that the amount of arrears which had been paid to the employee, upon the termination being set aside, was on account of some fault on the part of the petitioner-Institution and whereas such determination could have been arrived at by the competent authority after affording appropriate opportunity to the present petitioner.
4.3 Since the orders impugned, suffer from the above lacunas, which to this Court, are completely uncurable, yet, since it also appears that the right of the State for determination, if they so desire, should also be left open, while the impugned orders require appropriate interference, liberty also requires to be reserved in favour of the State to take appropriate proceedings, in case the State so desire, within a reasonable period of time.
5. Having regard to the above observations, to this Court, the following directions would suffice the ends of justice.
(i) The impugned order dated 19.04.2025 passed by the Education Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:02:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10010/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined Department of the State Government, is hereby quashed and set aside.
(ii) As a natural corollary of the above, the impugned order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the District Education Officer, Bharuch, is also quashed and set aside.
(iii) It would be open for the State to take appropriate action, as per the liberty reserved in favour of the State at Paragraph No. 25 (C) of the judgment dated 31.07.2024 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 386 of 2021, within a reasonable time, if the State so desires.
(iv) It is clarified that in case the State seeks to undertake such an exercise, as having been permitted by the Hon'ble Division Bench at Paragraph No. 25 (C) of the decision referred to hereinabove, then the State shall afford appropriate opportunity to the petitioner and shall also ensure determination of the liability of payment.
6. It is clarified that none of the observations herein, shall reflect as if this Court has made any observations as regards the substantive dispute between the State and the petitioner.
7. Needless to clarify that all rights and contentions of both the parties are kept open.
Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:02:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10010/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined
8. With the above observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of as partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the above extent.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) BDSONGARA Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:02:25 IST 2025