Superintendent Engineer, ... vs Shantilal Bhanabhai Tadvi
2022 Latest Caselaw 806 Guj

       C/LPA/101/2022                                 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2022



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.            101 of 2022

       In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 23242 of 2019

                                With
            CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
             In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 101 of 2022
==========================================================
     SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, NARMADA YOJNA (WRDC) CIRCLE
                             Versus
            SHANTILAL BHANABHAI TADVI & 52 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. ALKESH N SHAH(3749) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
 for the Respondent(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,13.1,14,15,16,17,18,18.1,19,2,20,21,21.1,22
,23,24,25,26,26.1,27,28,29,3,30,31,32,32.1,33,34,34.1,35,
36,36.1,37,38,38.1,39,4,40,41,42,43,43.1,44,45,46,47,47.1
,48,48.1,49,49.1,5,50,51,5.1,53,6,7,8,9
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP(99) for the
Respondent(s) No. 52
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
           and
           HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                            Date : 25/01/2022

                              ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)

1. Leave to amend the cause title as per the draft amendment dated 18.01.2022 is granted.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 03.08.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No. 23242 of 2019, the appellant has preferred this intra court appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

3. Heard Mr. Alkesh Shah, learned advocate for the

C/LPA/101/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2022

appellants and Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned AGP for the State Authority.

4. Mr. Alkesh Shah, learned advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge has misinterpreted the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and has wrongly come to the conclusion that while considering the pensionary benefits, total services, i.e., even the service before the respondent- employees were made permanent is also to be considered. On the sole ground, it was submitted by Mr. Shah that the appeal requires consideration.

5. Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned AGP has also adopted the arguments made by Mr. Shah.

6. The core issue which arises in this appeal is that as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, while considering and fixing the pension, whether the services rendered after becoming permanent employee is to be taken into reckoning or date of initial joining. The issue which arises in this appeal is as such covered by the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Naishad V. Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 2017(4) GLR 2952, which is rightly relied upon by the learned Single Judge. As a matter of fact, the said judgment was carried forward and the SLP against the said judgment has been dismissed as noted and observed by the learned Single Judge in para 9 of the impugned judgment. Moreover, it is also pertinent to note that the State Government itself had challenged

C/LPA/101/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2022

this very order under challenge by way of filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 1052 of 2020, which has been dismissed by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 15.12.2021.

7. We are in total agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge. We reiterate that the appellant authority cannot ignore the earlier services of the respondents workmen and the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in para 10 of the impugned judgment is in consonance with the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Connected Civil Application, if any, stands dismissed.

(R.M.CHHAYA,J)

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) BIJOY B. PILLAI