Gujarat High Court
Umedbhai Ballubhai Tadvi vs Executive Engineer, Narmada ... on 4 October, 2022
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/15345/2020 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15345 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2244 of 2021
==========================================================
UMEDBHAI BALLUBHAI TADVI
Versus
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NARMADA YOJNA VASAHAT, VIBHAG 3
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KIRIT R PATEL(2802) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3,30,4,5,6,
7,8,9
MR UTKARSH SHARMA, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 4
MR. KM ANTANI(6547) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 04/10/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Draft amendment granted. Rule returnable
forthwith. Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned AGP waives service
of notice of rule on behalf of respondent State.
2. The issue involved in these petitions is squarely
covered by a decision of this court rendered on
20.08.2014 in Special Civil Application No. 5530 of 2003
and allied matters. Relevant portion of the decision
C/SCA/15345/2020 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2022
reads as under:
"Having considered the affidavit-in-replies as also
written submissions made by the State, it appears that
the State is unable to distinguish this case from the
facts of Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra). A
bare look at Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas
(supra) indicates that all the arguments raised by the
State in the affidavit-in-reply as well as the written
submissions are specifically addressed and answered by
the Division Bench.
In such a scenario, it would be a sheer waste of
time, money and energy for this Court to reinvest the
said resources to address the issue identical to the one
decided by the Division Bench of this Court. In such a
context, this Court in V.A. Parekh Vs. State of
Gujarat [2009 (5) GLR 3922] made following
observations:
(1) It is immaterial that in a previous litigation
the particular petitioner before the Court was or
was not a party, but if law on a particular point
has been laid down by the High Court, it must be
followed by all authorities and Tribunals in the
State.
(2) The law laid down by the High Court must be
followed by all authorities and subordinate
Tribunals when it has been declared by the
highest Court in the State and they cannot ignore
it either in initiating proceeding of deciding on
the rights involved in such a proceeding.
(3) If in spite of the earlier exposition of law by
the High Court having been pointed out and
attention being pointedly drawn to that legal
position in utter disregard of that position
proceedings are initiated, it must be held to be a
willful disregard of the law laid down by the High
Court and would amount to civil contempt as
C/SCA/15345/2020 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2022
defined in Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971.
Further, this Court in SCA NO.28470 of 2007 &
allied matters, has made following observations in
paragraph Nos.6, 8 and 9:
6. In the opinion of this Court, once this Court
settles the law, unless subsequently unsettled by
the Higher Forum, it binds the State and it is the
constitutional duty of the State to confer similar
benefits to similarly situated persons without
asking, in view of the equality clause contained in
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It
appears that ignoring the above-referred
constitutional position, each individual
department of the State sticks to its individual
view rather than abiding by law declared by this
Court. Such an approach, in the opinion of this
Court, is contrary to public interest.
***
It is noticed that this Court is flooded with
number of identical matters, as noticed in
Paragraph-7. Number of decisions are rendered,
reiterating the same issue over and over again.
Once the High Court concludes a question of law,
it has to be acted upon to the benefit of all
similarly situated beneficiaries, irrespective of
their filing the petition or other legal proceedings
for claiming such benefits. If the judgment of the
High Court settling the legal position is not
implemented in the aforementioned manner,
identical cases will go on multiplying, resulting
into flooding of the litigation in already
overburdened Courts. Not only that, considerable
public time, money and energy gets involved in
the avoidable litigation.
9. At times, it is noticed that different
departments of the State would take their
C/SCA/15345/2020 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2022
individual stand, contrary to the stand taken by
the other department on the same or similar
matter, perhaps because of lack of coordination
between the two or more departments. It would
be, thus, appropriate if the State evolves a policy
to avoid the avoidable litigation as aforesaid. In
fact, the State has already declared its litigation
policy and it is desirable that under the said
policy, the issue discussed in Paragraphs-8 and 9
is addressed by the State to save public time,
money and energy in avoidable litigation.
Thus, in above view of the matter, this Court is
not required to specifically address each and every
issue that was raised and answered by the Division
Bench in Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra). In
fact, as per the settled legal position in such a scenario,
even the issues not raised before the bench of higher
strength would not be permissible for the State to be
raised in an identical case before a Single Judge. Only
relevant aspect would be whether the Division Bench
was concerned with the identical case or not and if the
answer is in the affirmative, the Single Judge would not
go into the detailed arguments as indicated above in
absence of the plea that the decision
in Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra) has been
overruled by a bench of higher strength or the Supreme
Court.
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs.
Umadevi & Ors. [AIR 2006 SC 1806] has been
heavily relied upon by the learned AGP with the
submission that illegal entries cannot seek as of right
the benefits of regularization. True that, in Umadevi
(Supra) the Honble Apex Court heavily came down on
the action of the constitutional authorities in allowing a
back-door entry in public service by a tool of
regularization, but an exception in paragraph No.44
was carved out thus:
C/SCA/15345/2020 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2022
....We also clarify that regularization, if any
already made, but not sub judice, need not be
reopened based on this judgment, but there
should be no further by-passing of the
constitutional requirement and regularizing or
making permanent, those not duly appointed as
per the constitutional scheme.
In the instant case also petitioners were
regularized and only issue herein is as regards
consequential benefits of such regularization.
Various issues raised in this petition have been
addressed by this Court in the context of the identical
facts in several decisions mentioned below:
Sr. Benefits Judgments/ orders Relevant
No. Para
1 Public (i) CAV Judgment dated Para
Holidays 14.10.2004 passed by Nos.28
the Honble Division and 29.
Bench in Letters Patent
Appeal No.1037 of 2004.
(ii)Order dated
08.04.2005 passed in
Special Leave to Appeal
(CC) No.3719 of 2005.
The said Special Leave
to Appeal was filed
against the judgment
and order dated
14.10.2004 passed in
Letters Patent Appeal
No.1037 of 2004.
(iii) State of Gujarat &
Anr., Vs.
Mahendrakumar
Bhagvandas & Anr.,
[2011 (2) GLR 1290]
C/SCA/15345/2020 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2022
Para
Nos.5
and 8.
2 Transport State of Gujarat & Anr., Para
Bhagvandas & Anr., and 8.
[2011 (2) GLR 1290]
3 Leave State of Gujarat & Anr., Para
at the time Bhagvandas & Anr., and 8.
of [2011 (2) GLR 1290]
retirement
and death
4 Counting of (i) Tribhovanbhai Para
service from Jerambhai Vs. Dy. Nos.9
the date of Executive Engineer, Sub- and 11.
joining for Division, R & B Deptt &
the purpose Anr., [1998 (2) GLH 1].
of pension
(ii) Oral order dated
06.08.1998 passed in
LPA No.1495 of 1997 in
SCA No.7539 of 1997 Page
(Chhaganbhai Nos.108
Ranchhodbhai Rathod to 110.
Vs. Dy. Executive
Engineer).
(iii) Oral order dated
14.12.2005 passed in
SCA No.788 of 2005
(Shyam B Salunkhe Vs.
Dy. Executive Engineer).
(iv) MANU/GJ/0072/2007 Para
(Sultan Ibrahim Mansuri Nos.4
vs. State of Gujarat & and 5.
Ors)
C/SCA/15345/2020 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2022
(v) Oral judgment dated
30/01/1996 passed in
SCA No.3607 of 1982.
(vi) State of Gujarat & Para
Anr., Vs. No.7.
Mahendrakumar Bhagva
ndas & Anr., [2011 (2)
GLR 1290]
Para
Nos.9
and 10.
Para
Nos.5
and 8.
5 Medical State of Gujarat & Anr., Para
Allowance Vs. Mahendrakumar Nos.5
Bhagvandas & Anr., and 8.
[2011 (2) GLR 1290].
6 Group State of Gujarat & Anr., Para
Insurance Vs. Mahendrakumar Nos.5
Bhagvandas & Anr., and 8.
[2011 (2) GLR 1290].
Under the circumstances, respondents are
required to be directed to follow Mahendrakumar
Bhagvandas (supra) in its letter and spirit and confer
upon the petitioner all the benefits as indicated in the
said judgment as also the judgments in the above table
within six months of receipt of the writ of this Court.
C/SCA/15345/2020 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2022
Accordingly, directed. These petitions accordingly
succeed. Rule is made absolute in each of the petitions.
No costs."
3. This order of the co-ordinate bench was confirmed in
appeal by way of decision dated 28.12.2018 passed in
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1567 of 2018.
4. In view of the above, present petitions are allowed in
terms of the order dated 20.08.2014 passed in Special
Civil Application No. 5530 of 2003 and allied matters. The
petitioners shall be entitled to the six ancillary benefits as
prayed for and the same shall be paid to them within ten
weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of the order of
this court. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
DIVYA
