Gujarat High Court
Prakashbhai Bhikhabhai Hire vs Divisional Controller Gsrtc, Surat ... on 29 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11548/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11548 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
PRAKASHBHAI BHIKHABHAI HIRE
Versus
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER GSRTC, SURAT DIVISION
==========================================================
Appearance:
ANURADHA G RATHOD(7717) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR GK RATHOD(2386) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 29/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal dated 04.03.2023 in Reference (IT) No.2020, as well as the order passed in Review Application No.1 of 2024 dated 31.01.2024, whereby though the learned Tribunal set aside the punishment of eight-stage down in pay scale to four-stage down in pay scale, the effect of Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 09:13:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11548/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined the order was given from 03.03.2020.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the petitioner was employed as a Conductor with the respondent Corporation at Songadh Depot, Surat Division, from 10.08.1989, and he retired on 30.06.2017. The allegation of misconduct was made against the present petitioner for the incident dated 09.11.2013, whereby it is alleged that at the time when the petitioner was on duty on the route from Vadodara to Shegaon, during inspection, the checking inspector found that seven passengers were travelling without fare amounting to Rs.357/-. A chargesheet was issued against the present petitioner, and thereafter, penalty was imposed after conducting the inquiry on 25.11.2014, demoting the petitioner by eight stages in the pay scale on a permanent basis. Challenging the said order, a first appeal came to be filed, which was rejected, and thereafter, Reference (IT) No.20 of 2020 came to be filed, whereby the learned Tribunal modified the punishment of eight-stage down in the pay scale to reduction of four stages in the pay scale, effective from 03.03.2020. It is further clarified that from the date of punishment i.e. 25.11.2014 to 03.03.2020, the petitioner would not be entitled to any kind of arrears. As prior to the effective date of the aforesaid Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 09:13:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11548/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined award, the petitioner had already retired from service on 30.06.2017, therefore, though the award was passed in favour of the petitioner, he could not get the fruits of the said award. In that background, a Review Application came to be filed, being Review Application No.1 of 2024; however, the same was also dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard the learned advocate Ms.Anuradha Rathod for the petitioner and the learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for the respondent.
4. Learned advocate Ms. Anuradha Rathod submits that the learned Industrial Tribunal has committed an error in directing modification of the punishment with effect from 03.03.2020, whereas the petitioner had already retired on 30.06.2017. Technically, though the punishment was modified, due to the effective date being 03.03.2020, the petitioner could not derive any benefit from the award. Learned advocate Ms. Rathod further submits that the petitioner has incurred a monthly loss of approximately Rs.5,000/- from the date of punishment i.e. 25.11.2014, and in all, a substantial loss of around Rs.2,00,000/- has been caused. Therefore, the impugned award deserves to be modified to the extent of giving effect Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 09:13:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11548/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined from the date of punishment i.e. 25.11.2014. Learned advocate Ms. Rathod also submits that the Review Application was dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, without considering the fact that the order dated 04.03.2023 had not been given effect in relation to the punishment imposed upon the petitioner. Considering the above aspects, learned advocate Ms. Rathod has prayed for interference with the impugned award and to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw submits that no error has been committed by the learned Court and that the petitioner would not be entitled to any arrears, as ordered by the learned Tribunal in the award dated 04.03.2023.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it emerges from the record that the learned Tribunal reduced the punishment imposed by the authority on 25.11.2014, modifying it from eight-stage reduction in pay to four-stage reduction in pay. It is an undisputed fact that prior to the impugned award, the petitioner had already retired on 30.06.2017. It is also not in dispute that the said award has not been challenged by the respondent Corporation by filing a petition before this Court.
Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 09:13:33 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11548/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined
7. In that background, in the considered opinion of this Court, though the petitioner succeeded in getting the punishment modified to four-stage reduction, due to the effective date given by the learned Tribunal, i.e. 03.03.2020, the petitioner could not derive the benefit of the order. In that scenario, in the opinion of this Court, the effective date is required to be given from the date of punishment, i.e. 25.11.2014, instead of 03.03.2020. The impugned order is, therefore, modified to the aforesaid extent, while the remaining part is not altered by this Court.
8. With the above direction, this petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 09:13:33 IST 2025