Gujarat High Court
Ghanshyam Parshottambhai Dabhi vs Gujarat Maritime Board on 22 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2154 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT sd/-
==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================
GHANSHYAM PARSHOTTAMBHAI DABHI & ORS.
Versus
GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD & ANR.
==========================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/
REPRESTENTATIVES for the Petitioner(s) No. 12,18,19,5,7
MS HARSHAL N PANDYA(3141) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12.1,12.2,12.3,12.4,13,14,15,16,17,18.1,18.2,18.3,19.1,19.2,
19.3,19.4,2,20,21,22,3,4,5.1,5.2,5.3,6,7.1,7.2,7.3,8,9
MR NIKUNT K RAVAL(5558) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 22/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Harshal N. Pandya appearing for the petitioners and learned advocate Ms. Dharmistha Raval, learned advocate for Mr. Nikunt K. Raval, learned advocate for respondent No.1.
Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:25:31 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined
2. With the consent of all the parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing. Hence, issue RULE. Learned advocate Ms. Dharmistha Raval, for Mr. Nikunt K Raval, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent No.1.
3. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for holding and directing the respondent authority to grant the petitioners the benefit of second higher pay scale upon their completion of fifteen years of service from the date of receipt of first higher pay scale, in light of Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007 and to direct the respondent authorities to grant second higher pay scale of Rs. 5200-20,200 (GP-1800) to the petitioners from their due date with all consequential benefits including arrears and consequential fixation of pay and pension with appropriate revision along with interest.
4. It is the case of the petitioners as stated by Ms. Pandya, learned advocate, that the petitioners were appointed as Khalasi in the Gujarat Maritime Board on different dates between 1976 and 1979, they were promoted to the post of Seamen between the year 1977-1981. Thereafter, pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, the petitioners were granted first Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:25:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined higher pay scale from their due dates on completion of a year, and thereafter, in the year 2007, Government's policy of granting higher pay scale upon completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service was modified vide Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007 and a new policy of giving higher pay scale upon completion of 12 and 24 years of services was introduced. However, as per Clause 4 (B) of the new policy vide Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007, if a person has already received the first higher pay scale on completion of 9 years, his second higher pay scale would become due on completion of 15 years from the date on which he got the first higher pay scale on completion of 9 years so as to ensure that he meets with the criteria of getting second higher pay scale upon completion of 24 years of service from the date of becoming eligible for getting second higher pay scale as per the Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007.
5. Considering the fact that the petitioners got their first higher pay scale upon completion of 9 years, the petitioners became eligible for second higher pay scale on completion of 15 years from their respective due dates.
6. Considering the representations, proposal was sent, however, Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:25:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined Head Office of Gujarat Maritime Board, communicated to respondent No.2 that as the petitioners have already availed the benefit of one promotion and one higher pay scale, they are not entitled to get the benefit of higher pay upon completion of 12 and 24 years of service and accordingly, proposal was returned by letters dated 19.10.2011 & 03.12.2011. Since many other Seamen granted the benefits of higher pay-scale, the petitioners approached the respondents agitating their grievance. Finally, they approached this Court by way of this petition seeking second higher pay scale.
7. During the pendency of the petition, other similarly situated persons who were also denied the benefits of second higher pay scale preferred the writ petitions being Special Civil Application No. 10318 of 2018 with Special civil Application No. 10320 of 2018 in case of Keshubhai Vashrambhai Bhuva V/s. Gujarat Maritime Board, the same are decided on 16.01.2020 by the Coordinate Bench, whereby while interpreting the Clause No. (4)
(a) and (b) of the aforesaid government resolution, the Coordinate Bench in its order dated 16.01.2020 considered the case of similarly situated persons and allowed the petitions and directed the respondent to grant the benefits of second higher Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:25:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined pay scale to the petitioners of those petitions.
8. The aforesaid order was carried in appeal by the respondent herein - Gujarat Maritime Board being Letters Patent Appeal No. 504 of 2020. However, the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.09.2020 and therefore, Gujarat Maritime Board carried both the aforesaid orders before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 1284 of 2021. However, the said Special Leave to Appeal also was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.02.2021. Ultimately, the order qua those petitioners was implemented by Gujarat Maritime Board and thereafter, one more employee having similar issue preferred the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 13416 of 2020 and others alongwith other petitioners on the same issue. Those set of petitions also were allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 08.02.2022 and the respondents have implemented that order as well as stated by learned advocate Ms. Pandya.
9. It is in this background, according to learned advocate Ms. Pandya when the benefits are granted to the other similarly situated persons and the orders are implemented qua them after Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:25:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined having failed till the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the present petitioners' case which is almost identical to the case of those petitioners is required to be considered positively and by allowing the petition, the respondents may be directed to grant the benefits of second higher pay scale to the present petitioners as well.
10. Though learned advocate Ms. Raval, appearing for the Gujarat Maritime Board vehemently opposed the petition, she could not point out anything on merits which would compel this Court to take a different view or on facts that the case of the present petitioners is different than the case of other persons who were the petitioners of that petitions mentioned in foregoing paragraphs and are decided against Gujarat Maritime Board. Therefore, learned advocate Ms. Raval submitted that though the right is accrued in favour of the petitioners as per the case of the petitioners themselves in the year 2010 whereas the petition is preferred in the year 2022 and therefore, there is a gross delay of 12 years in preferring the petition and therefore, the petition is required to be dismissed on the ground of delay.
11. By making the above submissions, she prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:25:31 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined
12. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the record. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties as well as considering the ground of delay agitated by learned advocate Ms. Raval, the Court is of the view that the right to avail the second higher pay scale was accrued in favour of the petitioners on completion of 15 years' service, after they were granted the benefits of first higher pay scale. The petitioners asked for grant of second higher pay scale was not entertained by letters dated 19.10.2011 and 03.12.2011 by the respondents. However, the aforesaid right is flowing in respect of original Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 which was subsequently modified vide Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007 and therefore, in view of Clause 4 (2) (B) of Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007, the petitioner is claiming second higher pay scale on completion of 15 years' service from the date on which the petitioners were granted first higher pay scale. The aforesaid right being an accrued right, the denial of aforesaid right to the petitioners, all throughout would constitute a continuous cause of action and therefore, the aspect of delay would not come in the way of the present petitioners.
13. Further in this petition, from the entire paper-book, learned Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:25:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined advocate Ms. Raval could not point out that the petitioners are not eligible or entitled for second higher pay scale and hence, the letters dated 19.10.2011 & 03.12.2011 holding the petitioners ineligible for second higher pay scale, are just, legal and proper. In absence of any material to indicate that the petitioners are ineligible to claim the second higher pay scale when the right has already accrued in favour of the petitioners by virtue of above referred Government Resolution, the delay would certainly not come in the way of the present petitioners and the contention of learned Ms. Raval to dismiss the petition on the ground of delay shall not be accepted and accordingly, rejected.
14. Apart from aforesaid, the petitioner is found to be entitled to receive the benefit of the 2nd higher grade pay-scale, the failure on the part of the respondent - Board to pay this benefit violates the fundamental right of the petitioner to receive the requisite pay scale. It is trite law that when the impugned action of the respondent - State is found to be violative of the fundamental right of the citizen - petitioner, the principle of estoppel, waiver, delay/laches etc. would not come to the rescue of the State (in present case- respondent-Board). { See - Basheshwar Nath v. Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:25:31 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined Commr. of Income-tax, Delhi, (1959) Supp (1) SCR 528: AIR 1959 SC 149}.
15. Now, if I consider the case of the petitioners vice versa case of other similarly situated persons who also preferred the petitions before this Court, learned advocate Ms. Raval could not point out that the case of the present petitioners is different from the case of those petitioners or that the issue is not squarely covered by the decision of this Court in case of Keshubhai Vashrambhai Bhuva (supra) wherein vide order dated 16.01.2020, the Coordinate Bench of this Court held that the petitioner of that petition is entitled to have second higher pay scale despite availing two promotions and one higher pay scale. The aforesaid view taken by the Coordinate Bench was confirmed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the instant case, the only ground to deny the petitioners the benefits of second higher pay scale was that the petitioners were given one promotion and one higher pay scale and only on that ground the aforesaid benefits of second higher pay scale was denied to the petitioners.
16. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the case of the petitioners is required to be considered in light of the case already decided on Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:25:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined 16.01.2020 in case of Keshubhai Vashrambhai Bhuva (Supra).
17. It is true that petitioners have approached very late by this petition as said after 12 years from accrual of their right to receive 2nd higher pay scale than this Court could have restricted the entitlement to the differential amount and arrears of the amount would have been directed to be paid from three years prior to filing of the present petition till its payment. But, due to cited decisions and especially other similarly situated persons though approached late like the petitioners herein have been granted entire benefits without any restriction by the respondent-Board, considering this peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am also not like to restrict the benefits, as aforesaid.
18. It would be apt to refer few paras of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Keshubhai Vashrambhai Bhuva (Supra) while noting the submissions of learned advocate for the respondents, the Coordinate Bench has observed in paragraph no. 8 to 13 as under:-
"8. Ms.Sejal Mandavia learned counsel for the respondent Board through her affidavit-in-reply would submit that though the service details of the petitioners are not disputed, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of Second Higher Grade Scale.Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:25:31 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined She would rely on the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 to contend that the resolution specifically provides in Clause-3 thereof that in case an employee receives two or more promotions, he would not be entitled to the benefit of the higher grade scale. She would further submit that the petitions are barred by gross delay and laches. She would submit that the petitioners have retired in the year 2012 and have approached this Court more than six years after such retirement and are praying for benefits after 11 years from the date of their entitlement and the petitions therefore must be dismissed.
9. Having considered the submissions of the learned advocates for the parties, what needs to be adjudged is whether since the petitioners have earned two promotions and one Higher Grade Scale, they can be deprived of the benefit of the Second Higher Grade Scale.
10. It is in this context that Clause 2, sub-clauses (2), (3) and (4) need to be read. When sub-clauses (2) and (3) are read, they make it clear that only when a beneficiary of the First Higher Grade Scale on completion of 12 years of service in accordance with the Resolution of 02.07.2007 is given such benefit, he is entitled to the benefit of the Second Higher Grade Scale on completion of further 12 years of service. This is subject to a qualification that such an incumbent has not earned more than one promotion and/or First Higher-Grade Scale.
11. When in this context, sub-clauses (4)(a) and (b) are read, they specifically provide that when an incumbent earns his first higher scale on completion of nine years of service in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, he shall earn the Second Higher Grade Scale on completion of 15 years thereafter. There are no riders in the clause that the earning of promotion and/or a higher grade scale would disentitle the incumbent of earning the Second Higher Grade Scale after the First Higher Grade Scale of nine years in accordance with the resolution dated Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:25:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined 16.08.1994.
Reading of the communication dated 12.09.2014 addressed by the Gujarat Maritime Board asking for its' opinion and the stand of the Government as is evident from the Finance Department's communications dated 04.03.2008 and 22.10.2014 make it clear that interpreting sub-clause 4(b) of Clause-2 of the resolution, the stand of the State is that one who has earned the First Higher Grade Scale on completion of nine years of service in accordance with the resolution dated 16.08.1994, is entitled to the Second Higher Grade Scale in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007 after completing 15 years thereafter. This of course is subject to the incumbents satisfying other conditions of the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994.
12. Keeping these clarifications in mind, the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs prayed for and therefore, the respondents are directed to grant Second Higher Grade Scale of Rs.9300-34800/-, G.P. Rs.4400/- to the petitioners from their due dates with all consequential benefits including arrears and consequential fixation of pay and pension.
13. The petitions are allowed."
(emphasis supplied)
19. The aforesaid decision was carried in appeal and confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.09.2020 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 504 of 2020 in case of Gujarat Maritime Board V/s. Damjibhai Jerambhai Akbari wherein in paragraph nos. 2 and 3, the Division Bench of this Court has observed as under:-
"2. The learned Single Judge, after considering the Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:25:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined relevant Government Resolutions dated 16th August 1994, 2nd July 2007 and other clarifications issued by the Gujarat Maritime Board and the State Government, as also the opinion given by the State Government, came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner (respondent herein) was entitled to the second Higher Grade Scale as per the Government Resolution dated 2nd July 2007 read with earlier Government Resolution dated 16th August 1994. It is admitted fact that the petitioner came to be appointed in 1978, thereafter, got first promotion on 10th September 1980 as Senior Clerk, from the post of Junior Clerk with effect from 26th December 1983. Thereafter, in 1992, upon completing 9 years of service in the cadre of Senior Clerk, he was granted the first Higher Grade Scale. Later on, in 2005, the petitioner was given promotion as Head Clerk in the same Pay Scale which was given to him as Higher Grade Scale in 1992. Thus, it is clear that the Higher Grade Scale given in 1992 and promotion in 2005 are in the same Pay Scale. Even from 1992, the writ petitioner has continued in the same Pay Scale and as such, under the Government Resolution referred above, he was entitled to next Higher Grade Scale after completing 15 years of service which would be available to him in 2007. The learned Single Judge has thus, extended the benefit correctly.
3. In view of the above, we do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge warranting interference in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the connected Civil Application stands disposed of."
(emphasis supplied)
20. Thereafter, though the respondents carried the aforesaid order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal No. 1284 of 2021, the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.02.2021 meaning Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:25:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined thereby, the view taken by the Coordinate Bench was confirmed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
21. It was pointed out during the course of the submissions by Ms. Pandya, learned advocate, that not only the aforesaid decision is implemented by the respondent - Board but subsequently, one more petitioner Viz. Urvashiben Umeshchandra Thanki who was also similarly situated person as compared to the present petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 13416 of 2020. While deciding the aforesaid petition alongwith other group of the petition, the Coordinate Bench in similarly set of facts held that those petitioners are also entitled to second higher pay scale vide judgment dated 08.02.2022 and the respondent - Board has not even challenged the aforesaid judgment and in fact has implemented the aforesaid judgment by granting the second higher pay scale to the petitioners of that group of the petition.
22. The aforesaid facts are undisputed as even learned advocate Ms. Raval also could not dispute the aforesaid facts and therefore, in light of the facts that the above decisions squarely cover the issue on hand and as the identically similarly situated persons have succeeded in their challenge and have been Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:25:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined granted second higher pay scale, there is no reason for this Court to take a different view more particularly when the facts are undisputed. Accordingly, the present petition is succeeded.
23. It is held that the present petitioners are entitled to have second higher pay scale on completion of 15 years from the date on which they were granted the benefit of first higher pay scale shown in the table at Annexure-A and the respondents are directed to grant the second higher pay scale to the petitioners at the earliest by calculating the arrears and all other consequential benefits but in any case not later than three months from the date of receipt of this order. In case of any delay beyond a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order, the respondents shall pay the interest @ of 6% on the entire amount to the petitioners.
24. In view of the foregoing observations, discussion and reasons, the petition is allowed in the peculiar facts and not to be treated as precedent. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) Lalji Desai Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Jan 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:25:31 IST 2026