State Of Gujarat vs Bhailalbhai Muljibhai Rathodia
2021 Latest Caselaw 17524 Guj

      C/LPA/1010/2021                               ORDER DATED: 22/11/2021




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1010 of 2021
                                   In
              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12860 of 2020
                                  With
               CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
                                    In
               R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1010 of 2021
==========================================================
                              STATE OF GUJARAT
                                     Versus
                        BHAILALBHAI MULJIBHAI RATHODIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS URMI DESAI AGP(1) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H.VORA
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

                                Date : 22/11/2021

                                 ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE)

Present LPA is filed against the judgment and order dated 03/11/2020 passed in SCA No.12860 of 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge.

2. The respondents herein were the daily wagers in the office of the appellants herein viz., R & B Department and have retired having put in more than 40 years of service and further they have also been granted the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 upon completion of the required ten years of service.

2.1 It is their grievance that for the purpose of fixation of the

C/LPA/1010/2021 ORDER DATED: 22/11/2021

pension, the appellants herein did not count their entire service from the date of their initial appointment but have counted the same from the date they were made permanent in terms of the Resolution. It is further their case that they are also entitled to the benefits of leave encashment for 300 days in addition to the pensionary benefits and gratuity on the basis of the total length of their service.

2.2 In support of their submissions before the learned Single Judge, the respondents herein relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of the Executive Engineer, Panchayat v. Samudabhai Jyotibhai Bhedi [2017 (4) GLR 2952] and in support of prayer for grant of leave encashment, they have relied upon the decision in the case of Babarbhai Ambalalbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat [SCA No.6396 of 2018 dated 17/01/2019].

2.3 The learned Single Judge after analysing the above decisions relied upon by the respondents herein held that the said decisions were also followed thereafter in other cases to grant similar reliefs to the petitioners therein and thereby allowed the said SCA of the respondents herein holding that they are entitled to be paid pension and other retirement benefits including gratuity by reckoning their services from the respective dates of their initial entry and joining in service till the date of retirement. It is further held that they are also entitled to the payment of leave encashment upon their retirement as may be admissible to each one of them.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellants herein has filed the present LPA.

C/LPA/1010/2021 ORDER DATED: 22/11/2021

4. Heard the learned AGP appearing for the appellants.

5. It was submitted by the learned AGP that R & B vide its Resolution dated 12/08/1991 has clarified the position that the daily wagers are only entitled to the benefits as mentioned in the GR dated 17/10/1988. It was further submitted that the said GR dated 17/10/1988 does not provide any benefit of leave encashment of 300 days to the daily wagers and to avoid any further confusion, it is clarified in the said GR that they shall not be entitled to LTC, Leave encashment, advances and government houses, etc.

6. When this Court specifically asked the learned AGP that if he could dispute the legal position as examined and enumerated by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, the learned AGP could not dispute the same and admitted that the said judgments were passed in favour of the persons who were similarly situated.

7. In view of the above, the law emerging from the judgment of the learned Single Judge and legal position not being disputed by the learned AGP, present LPA does not have any merits and is accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of LPA, connected applications stand dismissed.

(S.H.VORA, J)

(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE,J) sompura