Gujarat High Court
Trivedi Sureshbhai Pratapbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 25 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11513 of 2014
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2018
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11513 of 2014
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3333 of 2022
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7323 of 2014
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2018
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7323 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
TRIVEDI SURESHBHAI PRATAPBHAI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KB PUJARA(680) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR. PARTH PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - STATE
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 5,6
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MS. SIMRAN PAHWA FOR THAKKAR AND PAHWA ADVOCATES(1357) for
the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 25/09/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1.1 Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates for the respective respondents waive service of notice of rule on behalf of respective respondents.
1.2 All the mattes are having identical issues except Special Page 1 of 25 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 23:48:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined Civil Application No. 11513 of 2014 where the petitioners were retired before passing of the Government Resolution dated 22.01.2014, however, it is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioners that at the relevant point of time, when the decision was taken about responsibility of the State Government, these petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 11513 of 2014 were in service and thereafter, they have retired. Therefore, considering this aspects, all the petitions are considered together and decided by this common judgment.
2.1 The present Special Civil Application No. 11513 of 2014 is filed for seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) to admit this petition and to direct to be heard along with SCA No. 7323/2014 and to allow the same;
(b) to quash and set aside the impugned G.R. dated 22-1-
2014 as per Annexure-F and to hold and declare and direct that the petitioners who were employees of the Hospital of Mahuva Nagarpalika stand absorbed in the service of the State Government with effect from 1-5-2013 from which date the said Hospital has been taken over by the State Government with all its infrastructure and the staff, in the same manner and with the same benefits as were granted to the employees of the Hospitals of Veraval-Patan Joint Nagarpalika, Siddhpur Nagarpalika and Viramgam Page 2 of 25 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 23:48:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined Nagarpalika on the said Hospitals being taken over by the State Government as per Annexures H Colly., I-Colly. and J Colly., respectively;
(c) to hold and declare and direct that the employees of the erstwhile Hospital of Mahuva Nagarpalika the present petitioners are entitled to the exactly similar treatment in the matter of their service conditions as was the treatment given to the employees of the erstwhile Hospitals of Veraval-Patan Joint Nagarpalika, Siddhpur Nagarpalika and Viramgam Nagarpalika w.e.f. 1-5-2013 from which date the Hospital of Mahuva Nagarpalika has been taken over by the State Government with all its infrastructure and the staff;
(d) as the PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF THIS PETITION, BE PLEASED to stay further operation of the impugned G.R. dated 22-1-2014 as per Annexure-F and to direct the respondent authorities to treat the petitioners employees of the State Government with effect from 1-5-2013 from which date the Hospital of Mahuva Nagarpalika has been taken over by the State Government, subject to further orders that may be passed by the Hon'ble High Court;
(e) to grant any other appropriate and just relief/s;"
2.2 The present Special Civil Application No. 7323 of 2014 is filed for seeking the following reliefs: Page 3 of 25 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 23:48:17 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined "(a) to admit this petition and to allow the same;
(b) to quash and set aside the impugned G.R. dated 22-1-
2014 as per Annexure-F and to hold and declare and direct that the petitioners who were employees of the Hospital of Mahuva Nagarpalika stand absorbed in the service of the State Government with effect from 1-5-2013 from which date the said Hospital has been taken over by the State Government with all its infrastructure and the staff, in the same manner and with the same benefits as were granted to the employees of the Hospitals of Veraval-Patan Joint Nagarpalika, Siddhpur Nagarpalika and Viramgam Nagarpalika on the said Hospitals being taken over by the State Government as per Annexures- H Colly., I-Colly. and J Colly., respectively;
c) to hold and declare and direct that the employees of the erstwhile Hospital of Mahuva Nagarpalika -the present petitioners are entitled to the exactly similar treatment in the matter of their service conditions as was the treatment given to the employees of the erstwhile Hospitals of Veraval-Patan Joint Nagarpalika, Siddhpur Nagarpalika and Viramgam Nagarpalika w.e.f. 1-5-2013 from which date the Hospital of Mahuva Nagarpalika has been taken over by the State Government with all its infrastructure and the staff;
(d) PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF THIS PETITION, BE PLEASED to stay further operation of Page 4 of 25 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 23:48:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined the impugned G.R. dated 22-1-2014 as per Annexure-F and to direct the respondent authorities to treat the petitioners as the employees of the State Government with effect from 1-5-2013 from which date the Hospital of Mahuva Nagarpalika has been taken over by the State Government, subject to further orders that may be passed by the Hon'ble High Court;
(e) to grant any other appropriate and just relief/s;"
FACTS OF THE CASE:-
3. The facts of Special Civil Application No. 7323 of 2014 is almost identical to other captioned petition except Special Civil Application No. 11513 of 2014 whereby the petitioners were retired before passing of the Government Resolution dated 22.01.2014. Hence, facts are taken in nutshell from Special Civil Application No. 7323 of 2014 as stated in the memo of petition are as under:
3.1 It is the case of the petitioners in this petition that the petitioners were appointed as employees in the hospital run by Mahuva Nagarpalika, namely, Mahuva Municipal Medical Unit. The said Hospital was originally under the State Government and in the year 1952, it was handed over to Mahuva Nagarpalika because of its sound economic conditions.
However, at present the economic condition of Mahuva Page 5 of 25 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 23:48:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined Nagarpalika being not good and running of the Hospital requires huge expenditure, the Mahuva Nagarpalika decided to hand over the Hospital with all its infrastructures and staff to the State Government by Resolution dated 15.01.2010. The State Government granted the sanction for taking over the said hospital with a view to developing the same as 200- Bed Hospital and to give it the status of the District Hospital by G.R. dated 14.09.2012, and by G.R. dtd. 30-4- 2013, State Government took over the Hospital w.e.f. 1-5- 2013, pending the decision for absorption of the staff in the State Government. Arrangement for payment of salaries to the staff was made by orders of the State Government and Commissioner dated 4.6.2013 and 10.06.2013. Now the State Government has issued G.R. dated 22-1-2014, inter alia, deciding that the existing 52 employees of the hospital will be continued in the General Hospital Mahuva under the State Government as if they are on deputation from Mahuva Nagarpalika under their retirement, with the same pay and the rules of service and discipline of Nagarpalika, but their salaries and allowances shall be paid by the State Government till they remain in service and the State Government will not be responsible for their retirement benefits. The said G.R. dated 22.01.2014 being clearly contrary to the letter and spirit of the resolutions passed by the Mahuva Nagarpalika for handing over the hospital to the Page 6 of 25 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 23:48:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined State Government with all its infrastructures and the staff, the Nagarpalika has already made a representation dated 10.02.2014. So far as the petitioners are concerned, they are seriously aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the State Government as the same is clearly contrary to the proclaimed policy of the State Government to absorb the employees of such hospitals in the service of the State Government, and it is giving discriminatory treatment to the petitioners vis-à-vis the exactly similarly situated employees of the other hospitals of the other Nagarpalikas, which have been taken over by the State Government, namely, the Hospitals of Veraval-Patan Joint Nagarpalika, Siddhpur Nagarpalika and Viramgam Nagarpalika in as much as the concerned employees of the said hospitals have been absorbed in the service of the State Government with all the benefits which are available to the employees of the State Government.
3.2 It is further the case of the petitioners in this petition that the hospital of Mahuva Nagarpalika had employed not only the present petitioners but several other persons were also employed on daily-wage basis and they were not been paid their salaries after the said hospital was taken over by the State Government w.e.f. 01.05.2013 and therefore 29 such daily-wage employees have approached this Hon'ble Court by way of SCA No. 3434 of 2013 and they had preferred Civil Page 7 of 25 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 23:48:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined Application (for interim relief) No. 1100 of 2014 in the said petition for a direction for payment of their salaries. In the said order this Hon'ble Court has clearly held as under in paragraph-14 "14 It is not in doubt that the terms and conditions governing the administration of the Hospital are in the hands of the State Government as the Hospital has been taken over from the Mahuva Nagarpalika. Mahuva Nagarpalika no longer has any responsibility in this regard as the State Government has taken over the Hospital with staff and infrastructure from the Municipality with no prior conditions." It is further the case of the petitioners in this petition that for the same reasons and in view of what has been elaborately stated and submitted in the memo of petition, the present petitioners are entitled to the reliefs prayed for in this petition.
4. Heard Mr. K.B. Pujara, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Parth Patel, learned AGP for the respondent- State and Ms. Simran Pahwa, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Thakkar and Pahwa Advocates for the respondent Page 8 of 25 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 23:48:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined No.4.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:- 5.1 Mr. K.B. Pujara, learned advocate for the petitioners has strongly submitted that the petitioners should get equal treatment like the employees of Veraval-Patan Municipality as well as Siddhpur Nagarpalika whereby the Government has observed the employees of the municipality. He has referred to the pleadings and has submitted that the Mahuva Municipal Medical Unit (Hospital) was originally owned by State Government. Thereafter, in the year 1952, it was handed over to Mahuva Nagarpalika in view of its sound economic condition. He has submitted that on 29.12.2009 and thereafter on 15.01.2010, the medical board and General Body of Mahuva Nagarpalika passed resolution for ending over the hospital to State Government along with all properties, land, buildings, Staffs, instruments, etc. He has submitted that on 14.09.2012, the State Government issued G.R. granting sanction for taking over the said hospital. He has further submitted that on 30.04.2013, the State Government issued another GR dated 30.04.2013 for taking over hospital w.e.f. 01.05.2013 and provisionally passed order for treating the staff of hospital as on deputation, pending the decision for their absorption in the State Government subject to prevalent rules. He has submitted that on 22.01.2014, the State Page 9 of 25 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 23:48:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined Government issued G.R. dated 22.01.2014, inter alia, deciding that 52 employees of hospital will be continued in the General Hospital Mahuva under State Government as if they are on deputation from Nagarpalika until their retirement, with the same pay, but their salaries shall be paid by the State Government till they remain in service and State Government will not be responsible for their retirement benefit. He has submitted that thereafter, tepresentation was made by Mahuva Nagarpalika for correcting the conditions mentioned in G.R. 22.01.2014 with respect to the payment of retrial benefits by State Government and, therefore, he has submitted that by way of these petitions, the petitioners are challenging the action of State Government by treating them on deputation to the government hospital from Mahuva Nagarpalika until they retire and with the same pay and service rules as of Nagarpalika and denying the retrial benefit.
5.2 By referring to the documents annexed with the petitioner, he has further submitted that similarly situated employees of other hospital that are Verval-Patan joint nagarpalika, Siddhpur Nagarpalika, Viramgam Nagarpalika, etc., which are taken over by the State Government, are absorbed in the service by the State Government with all the benefits which are available to the employees of the State Page 10 of 25 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 23:48:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined Government. He has further submitted that all the employees of these hospitals were absorbed in state government and their pay fixations were accordingly made and continuity of service was granted from their initial date of joining service in the hospital of Nagarpalika for the purpose of pensionary benefits. He has further submitted that the entire staff of hospital along with hospital comes under the state government and the staff would be now governed by the service rules as applicable to the employees of the state. Lastly, he has submitted that in Special Civil Application No. 11513 of 2014, the employees were retired before the G.R. dated 22.01.2014 but they were in service when the State Government issued G.R. dated 14.09.2012 granting sanction for taking over the said hospital and, therefore, they are also entitled to get the same benefits as other employees will get. He has also submitted that the respondent-authority being a welfare state cannot take such hyper-technical view of the matter by refusing the benefits of such employees who are retired prior to G.R. of the year 2014 on such flimsy ground. 5.3 Furthermore, he has submitted that some other daily wagers were also employed and they were not paid salary after the said hospital was taken by the State Government and, therefore, 29 daily wagers filed SCA No. 3434 of 2013 and they preferred C.A. No. 1100 of 2014 in said petition for Page 11 of 25 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 23:48:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined interim relief for direction for payment of their salaries and which was allowed by this Hon'ble Court. He has submitted that G.R. dated 26.02.2014 was issued and manpower of 125 persons were sanctioned and in that G.R., it was stated that existing 52 employees shall be confined as if they are on deputation until their retirement and the remaining 73 posts shall be filled up as per the rules and regulations of State Government. He has submitted that such action of the State- authority of absorbing the present petitioners is unfair, irrational and arbitrary and amounts to discriminatory treatment given to the similarly situated employees and, therefore, he has submitted that the present petition is required to be allowed.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT- STATE:-
6.1 Per contra, Mr. Parth Patel, learned AGP for the respondent-State has argued the matter in detail and after conclusion of argument, he has submitted the written submissions. He has submitted that the State Government vide Government Resolution dated 22.01.2014 took a decision to continue the services of total 52 employees of Mahuva Nagarpalika on deputation, whereby the State will be solely responsible for salaries and allowances of the employees as per Clause (5), while the retiral benefits will be borne by the Page 12 of 25 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 23:48:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined Nagarpalika as per Clause (6). He has further submitted that the State Government is not responsible for pensionary benefits because even after the deputation, the Petitioners are still considered to be the employees of their parent organisation i.e., Mahuva Nagarpalika and the said deputation does not result into a recruitment in its true significance, and therefore, the petitioners are to be continued as members of their parent service i.e., Nagarpalika. He has further submitted that they are to be treated as employees of Nagarpalika for all purposes because deputation does not alter the employment status: employees will continue to belong to their parent organization. He has further submitted that the petitioners were initially appointed by the Mahuva Nagarpalika and were subject to their recruitment rules. He has further submitted that they had never undergone any recruitment process of the State Government before being appointed in the Nagarpalika. He has further submitted that on perusing their service records, it was found that they were not possessing required educational qualifications, age, experience, etc. required for the district level hospital as per the recruitment rules and, therefore, the employees were taken on deputation and it was not possible to absorb them in State services. He has further submitted that in fact, their services were protected by the State by allowing them to continue on same salary. He has further submitted that in Page 13 of 25 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 23:48:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined the case of Veraval-Patan Nagarpalika whereby State had taken over the hospital by Government Resolution dated 18.12.1996, it was clearly mentioned in para 5.2 to 5.4 of that resolution that the employees to be absorbed must be possessing the required educational qualifications, age, experience, etc. as per the recruitment rules and he shall be paid minimum salary of the pay scale of the post and further, their services shall be treated as new service from date of joining state services. Thus, those employees therein were absorbed after it was found that they had qualifications. 6.2 He has further submitted that the present petitioners cannot claim absorption in the State services because they were never appointed by the State. The object of the State was to improve the medical facilities being provided by the said hospital and with a view to see that the hospital's infrastructure gets improved in the larger public interest without any break, the staff of Nagarpalika was deputed, giving them the same salary as was paid by the Nagarpalika. He has further submitted that petitioners herein, at the time of their initial appointment in the Nagarpalika, were well aware that the Nagarpalika does not have policy of granting pension, but when the decision of taking them on deputation was taken by the State Government, they challenged the said decision claiming Page 14 of 25 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 23:48:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined absorption because they were in knowledge of the fact that they will receive the pensionary benefits if they get absorbed. He has further submitted that it is pertinent to mention that most of the petitioners were on the verge of retirement when the decision vide impugned Government Resolution dated 22.01.2014 was taken. Therefore, such claim which is raised by the petitioners is absolutely impermissible and deserves to be rejected.
6.3 He has further submitted that deputation and absorption are part of policy decision of the State Government and, therefore, it does not create any vested right in favour of the petitioners. He has further submitted that so far as the cases of other Nagarpalikas are concerned, it is not necessary that once the State has taken a decision for a particular case, the same should be followed for all times to come, more particularly, when the issue involves policy decision. He has further submitted that it varies from time to time in each case depending upon the financial implications on the State. He has further submitted that in the present case, huge financial burden will be cast upon the State for long time. He has further submitted that if the petitions are allowed because pension is not one time payment but monthly expenditure, there is continuous liability in future towards pensionary benefits.
Page 15 of 25 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 23:48:17 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined 6.4 Lastly, in support of his submissions, he has relied on following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
(i) Kunal Nanda vs. Union of India reported in 2000 (5) SCC 362, relevant para is para 6.
(ii) Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel vs. Union of India reported in 2012 (7) SCC 757, relevant para is para 11. 6.5 In light of the above submissions, he has submitted that the present petitions are required to be dismissed.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT- NAGARPALIKA:-
7. Ms. Simran Pahwa, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Thakkar and Pahwa Advocates for the respondent No.4-Nagarpalika has also supported the submissions made at the bar by learned AGP and has also filed written submission, which is as under:
1. The petitioners have sought benefit of retiral benefits of gratuity, pension, commuted pension from respondents, more particularly respondent no.1 to 3. Page 16 of 25 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 23:48:17 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined Therefore, there is no direct prayer against respondent no.4 Nagar Palika.
2. Respondent no.4 Nagar Palika is not paying pension to any of its employees and the workers of the Nagar Palika are only entitled to gratuity and provident fund.
3. All such workers represented by petitioner are working under the State Government and salary is being paid by the State Government and therefore, the respondent no.4 cannot be made liable to pay pension or any other such benefits.
4. The State Government is paying salary and retiral benefits as per 7th Pay Commission, whereas the employees of respondent no.4 Nagar Palika are being paid salary and retiral benefits as per 6th pay Commission. In such circumstances, if this Hon'ble Court directs the Nagar Palika to pay any such benefit, the same would result into discrimination between the employees of Nagar Palika and the employees of the hospital.
5. It is an admitted fact that the Nagar Palika is facing huge financial crunch and therefore, the hospital Page 17 of 25 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 23:48:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined was taken out by the State in the year 2013. The Nagar Palika has in fact taken a loan of Rs. 5.52 Crores from the State Government which is yet to be repaid. No such retiral benefits have been paid by the Nagar Palika to its employees since last 5 years because of financial crunch. As on today, the establishment expenditure is beyond 48% and therefore also, the Nagar Palika by way of order dated 16.7.2019 had withdrawn its resolution granting benefits of 6th Pay Commission to its employees.
6. The State Government has taken over the administration of hospital w.e.f. 1.5.2013 and therefore, the State Government is solely liable to pay 100% of the benefits to the petitioners, if any.
7. In fact, the Nagar Palika addressed a letter dated 10.2.2014 (Annex-G of Special Civil Application No. 11513 of 2014) to Additional Director, Health Department stating that at the time when Nagar Palika was handling hospital, even at that time, the State Government was giving the benefits to the employees. Therefore, after the hospital is taken over by the State Government in the year 2013, the Nagar Palika is not responsible to give such benefits to its employees, Page 18 of 25 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 23:48:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined otherwise, the establishment expenditure would increase exponentially.
8. By way of order dated 4.2.2014 passed in Civil Application No. 1100 of 2014 in Special Civil Application No. 3434 of 2013, this Hon'ble Court has held that it is not in doubt that the terms and conditions governing the administration of the hospital are in the hands of the State Government as the hospital has been taken over from Mahuva Nagar Palika. Mahuva Nagar Palika no longer has any responsibility in this regard as the State Government has taken over the hospital with staff and infrastructure from the municipality with no prior conditions.
9. Furthermore, the Government Resolution dated 13.1.2021 (by which the Nagar Palika was to pay 25% of such expenditure) has been challenged by way of Special Civil Application No. 20235 of 2023 and the same is pending adjudication.
7.2 In view of the above, she has prayed to dismiss this petition.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:-
Page 19 of 25 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 23:48:17 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined
8.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar by the respective parties. I have also considered the fact that the petitioners are serving in Mahuva Municipality since the years together and the petitioners were on the verge of retirement when they were considered on the deputation by the State Authority. In Special Civil Application No. 11513 of 2014, the petitioners were retired before passing of the Government Resolution dated 22.01.2014, but they were in service in the year 2012, when the State has taken decision to take over the management of the hospital. It also transpires from the record and more particularly from the pleadings of the parties that similarly situated persons, who are having requisite qualifications, are absorbed in the State Government; and in the present case, the State has not absorbed the petitioners either because they are not possessing requisite educational qualification or age, etc., which are not in consonance with the Recruitment Rules of the State Government. It also transpires that the facts of the present case are required to be viewed differently from the other Nagarpalika as in the case of Veraval-patan Nagarpalika, there is specific clause that the persons, who are having requisite qualification as per recruitment rules of the state government, will be absorbed in the State Government.
Page 20 of 25 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 23:48:17 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined 8.2 It is not in dispute that at the time of appointment, the petitioners were appointed by Nagarpalika and selected by the Nagarpalika and they were serving with the Nagarpalika for the years together. The petitioners were in knowledge that Municipality does not have any policy for the granting of pension. Merely because State had decided to take the services with the Nagarpalika and to give the appointment or to take services on deputation or for the purpose of absorption, it is required to be considered by the State in view of the policy of the State and prevalent Rules and GRs. In the present case, it cannot be said that State had not acted in consonance with its policy. Such interest of the petitioners were protected by considering their cases on deputation and to that extent, they are getting salary which they were getting as employees of the Nagarpalika. Furthermore, it is admitted position that Mahuva Municipality has no policy about granting of pension and, therefore, as a matter of right, the petitioners cannot claim for benefit from the State Government merely because the State has taken over the management of the hospital. 8.3 It also required to be considered that when the State has made specific provision in the G.R. of the year 2014 regarding the services of the petitioners on deputation, now the petitioners cannot compel the State to absorb them Page 21 of 25 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 23:48:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined merely because for some of Nagarpalika, State Government has taken decision to absorb the employees. Even the decision is required to be taken by the State by considering the overall situation, financial implication and also considering the prevalent policy at the relevant point of time and, therefore, while deciding such issue, this Court may not exercise the powers of judicial review when there is the issue of policy involved in the matter. In the present case, I am of the opinion that the said challenge of the petitioners is arising from the policy decision by the State Government and, therefore, on the scrutiny of the materials available on the record and arguments of the rival parties, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case that it can be said that there is any violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in any manner and also it cannot be said that there is any discrimination among the equally situated persons.
8.4. Now, it is fruitful to refer the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate for the respondent-State, which reads thus:
(i) Kunal Nanda (supra), relevant para is para 6, which is as under:
[ "6. On the legal submissions made also there are no Page 22 of 25 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 23:48:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined merits whatsoever. It is well settled that unless the claim of the deputationist for permanent absorption in the department where he works on deputation is based upon any statutory Rule, Regulation or Order having the force of law, a deputationist cannot assert and succeed in any such claim for absorption. The basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person concerned can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive position therein at the instance of either of the departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which he had gone on deputation. The reference to the decision reported in Rameshwar Prasad vs M.D., U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. and Others [1999 (8) SCC 381] is inappropriate since, the consideration therein was in the light of statutory rules for absorption and the scope of those rules. The claim that he need not be a graduate for absorption and being a service candidate, on completing service of 10 years he is exempt from the requirement of possessing a degree need mention, only to be rejected. The stand of the respondent department that the absorption of a deputationist being one against the direct quota, the possession of basic educational qualification prescribed for direct recruitment i.e., a degree is a must and essential and that there could no comparison of the claim of such a person with one to be dealt with on promotion of a candidate who is already in service in that department is well merited and deserves to be sustained and we see no infirmity whatsoever in the said claim."Page 23 of 25 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 23:48:17 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined
(ii) Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel vs. Union of India reported in 2012 (7) SCC 757, relevant para is para 11, which is as under:
"11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the case of the appellant was not a case of transfer on deputation but was a case of appointment on deputation after following all due procedures for appointment and selection. In the absence of any illegality in selection, it was not open to the respondents to cancel the offer of appointment. Such action is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
CONCLUSION:
8.5 Considering the abovementioned position and considering the well settled position of law that powers of judicial review is very limited with this Court in such matters. It cannot be said that great prejudice is caused to the present petitioners by considering their services on deputation. Merely because in cases of other Municipality, the State Government has considered the same and more particularly when it is a clear case put forward by the State Government that the petitioners are not having requisite educational qualification, age, etc., as required for the government rules and considering the fact that the state has not taken any part Page 24 of 25 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 23:48:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11513/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined when the petitioners were recruited in service of the Nagarpalika, it cannot be said that it is obligatory on the part of the State Authority to absorb them in the establishment and, therefore, I found no merit in the present petitions and, therefore, the present petitions are required to be dismissed as no ground is made out to interfere by exercising my jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the present petitions are found meritless and are required to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Connected Civil Applications are disposed of accordingly.
Rule stands discharged.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) DIWAKAR SHUKLA Page 25 of 25 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 23:48:17 IST 2025