Executive Engineer vs Abhesinh Amarsinh Pagi
2021 Latest Caselaw 2004 Guj

         C/LPA/214/2021                                   ORDER



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 214 of 2021
                              In
         R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22625 of 2019
===========================================================
                    EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
                            Versus
                  ABHESINH AMARSINH PAGI
================================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
 CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM
          NATH
          and
          HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
                       Date : 10/02/2021
                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH)

We have heard Mr. H. S. Munshaw, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dipak Dave, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents.

2. Learned counsel Mr. Dave has placed reliance upon the judgment and order dated 10.01.2018 of the Division Bench passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 36 of 2018 and other connected appeals whereby the appeals were dismissed, however subject to certain observations made in paragraph 4.01 of the said judgment. Mr. Dave submits that the same observations as made in paragraph 4.01 of the said judgment which points out that only those years in which the concerned workmen/employees - original petitioners have worked for more than 240 days as a daily wager are required to be considered/counted for the purpose of counting/considering pensionable service, may also be observed in the present matter and the appeal may be disposed of. Mr. Dave further submits that the SLP against the same

C/LPA/214/2021 ORDER

has since been dismissed vide order dated 04.01.2019 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 45860 of 2018.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Munshaw for the appellant refers to pages 24­25 of the paper­book which are, according to him, are the statements/charts showing the number of days of working per year of both the writ petitioners. According to him, the petitioner No.1 would be entitled to the benefit of counting his services from 1987­1988 and so far as the petitioner No.2 is concerned, it would be from 1997­1998 as according to him, from these years, both the petitioners have worked for 240 days per year.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Dave has objection to this and according to him, the order should be passed in tune with the observations made in paragraph 4.01 in the judgment dated 10.01.2018 as otherwise, the appellant would again create a issue for the writ petitioners.

5. Whatever may be the case. What we find is that both the writ petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of only those years in which they have worked for 240 days in the year and not of other year. Mr. Munshaw is also saying the same thing but in a different manner. Since there is a Division Bench judgment confirmed by the Supreme Court, we place reliance upon the same and dispose of the present appeal with the same direction and modification as mentioned in paragraph 4.01 of the judgment dated 10.01.2018.

(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)

(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J) cmk