Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Shraddha Bharatbhai Parmar on 27 September, 2022
Bench: A.J.Desai
C/LPA/827/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.827 of 2020
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12090 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO.1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.827 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.829 of 2020
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8343 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO.1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.829 of 2020
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8343 of 2019
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.830 of 2020
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9712 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO.1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.830 of 2020
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9712 of 2019
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.831 of 2020
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10805 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO.1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.831 of 2020
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10805 of 2019
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.202 of 2022
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12316 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO.1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.202 of 2022
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12316 of 2019
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.204 of 2022
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12269 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 204 of 2022
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12269 of 2019
Page 1 of 8
Downloaded on : Thu Sep 29 21:09:35 IST 2022
C/LPA/827/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE :
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. J. DESAI Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT Sd/-
=========================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be NO
allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair NO
copy of the judgment ?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial NO
question of law as to the interpretation of the
constitution of India, 1950 or any order made
thereunder ?
=========================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SHRADDHA BHARATBHAI PARMAR
=========================================
Appearance :
Letters Patent Appeal Nos.827, 829, 830 of 2022 and 202 and
204 of 2022
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, AGP for the Appellants.
MR. EKRAMA H QURESHI for the Respondent.
Letters Patent Appeal No.831 of 2020
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, AGP for the Appellants.
MR NIKUL K SONI for the Respondent.
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. J. DESAI
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 27/09/2022
Page 2 of 8
Downloaded on : Thu Sep 29 21:09:35 IST 2022
C/LPA/827/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2022
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. J. DESAI)
1. Admit. Learned advocates appearing for the
respondent in each of the appeals waive service of admission on
behalf of respective respondent.
2. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for
the respective parties, all these appeals are taken up for final
hearing today itself, since learned advocates appearing for the
respondent have filed caveat and have also filed reply in some of
the appeals.
3. By way of the present group of appeals under Clause 15
of the Letters Patent, the State Authorities have challenged the
common oral judgment dated 25.9.2019 passed in group of writ
petitions qua direction issued by learned Single Judge that all the
respondents shall be entitled to salary and other benefits from the
year 2012.
4. The short facts arise from the record are as under :-
4.1 That the respondent in each of the appeals had filed
captioned writ petitions in the year 2019 relying upon a decision of
the Division Bench of this Court rendered on 24.1.2018 in Letters
Patent Appeal No.1184 of 2017 and allied appeals in the case of
Acharya Madhavi Bhavin and others v. State of Gujarat by which
the Division Bench has held that all the Lecturers shall be treated
at par with the adhoc lecturers appointed prior to May 2008 and
ultimately directed that they shall be granted such benefits from
the last three years preceding the filing of the writ petition i.e. from
C/LPA/827/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2022
the year 2012 onwards.
4.2 The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ
petitions of the respondent granted the said benefits from the year
2012.
4.3 Hence these appeals.
5. Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing for the appellants in all these appeals would
submit that learned Single Judge has committed an error in
granting benefits to the original petitioners from the year 2012
though the writ petitions were filed by the respondents - original
petitioners subsequent to the decision of the Division Bench in
Letters Patent Appeal No.1184 of 2017 which was delivered on
24.1.2018. He would further submit that Division Bench of this
Court while disposing of Letters Patent Appeal No.1184 of 2017
has granted benefit from the year 2012 onwards relying upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and not relied upon any
Government Resolution that an employee would be entitled for the
benefit from the year 2012 onwards. By taking us through the
operative part of the said judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.1184 of 2017, he
would submit that Division Bench has specifically held that the
respondent would be entitled for benefits from three years
preceding the filing of the writ petition and as in the said case, the
writ petitions were filed in the year 2015, the said benefits were
granted from the year 2012 onwards. However, in the present
cases, the original petitioners had filed writ petitions in the year
2019 and hence, they will be entited for the benefits from the last
C/LPA/827/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2022
three years preceding the filing of the writ petition. He, therefore,
would submit that the appeals may be allowed to the said extent.
6. On the other hand, learned advocates Mr. Ekrama
Qureshi as well as Mr. Nikul Soni appearing for the respondent in
respective appeals have supported the reasons assigned by learned
Single Judge. They would submit that all the employees are
required to be treated at par with others who have been granted
benefits from the year 2012.
6.1 Mr. Ekrama Qureshi has relied upon the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat v.
Secretary, Labour, Social Welfare and Tribunal Development
Department and another, 1982 (1) GLR 61 and would submit
that it has been held that when law is declared by Supreme Court
or High Court, the legal position is that the same is binding on the
State and its Officers and they are bound to follow the same. He,
therefore, would submit that learned Single Judge has committed
no error in granting benefits from the year 2012. He, therefore,
would submit that the appeals may be dismissed.
6.2 In support of his submission, Mr. Nikul Soni would
submit that in case of some of the employees who are similarly
situated persons, against the order passed in writ petition, though
no appeal was filed, they were granted benefits from the year 2012.
In support of this submission, he has taken us through the
communication dated 18.3.2019 whereby benefits were granted to
those 31 employees from the year 2012.
At this stage, we would like to observe that in response
C/LPA/827/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2022
to the query, Mr. Soni has admitted that in none of the cases of the
said 31 employees, writ petitions were filed subsequent to the
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent
Appeal No.1184 of 2017 and he fairly conceded that all those 31
employees had filed the writ petitions in the year 2015.
7. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties. It is not in dispute that the judgment delivered
by learned Single Judge of those petitioners - employees who had
filed the writ petitions in the year 2015 or prior thereto, State
Authority has preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.1184 of 2017.
The Division Bench of this Court after relying upon the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv Dass v. Union of India
and others, reported in AIR 2007 SC 1330 has held in paragraph 9
which reads as under :-
"9. In view of the above and for the reasons
stated above, Letters Patent Appeal Nos.1354/2017,
1359/2017 and 2148/2017 preferred by the
appellant - original respondents - State Authorities
deserve to be dismissed and are, accordingly,
dismissed. Letters Patent Appeal No.1184/2017 in
Special Civil Application No.8152/2015 preferred by
the original petitioners of Special Civil Application
No.8152/2015 is hereby partly allowed and the
impugned judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application
No.8152/2015 is hereby modified to the extent it is
held that the original petitioners shall be entitled to
the salary and other benefits at par with those
C/LPA/827/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2022
adhoc lecturers appointed prior to May 2008 and
they shall be granted such benefit from the last 3
years preceding the filing of the petition i.e. from
2012 onwards. No costs."
8. Considering the above observations, the Division Bench
of this Court held that the benefits shall be granted from the last
three years preceding the filing of the petition i.e. from the year
2012 onwards. It is important to note that such observations were
made by Division Bench keeping in mind that the Special Civil
Applications were filed in the year 2015. It is an undisputed fact
that all the respondents have filed the captioned writ petitions in
the year 2019 i.e. subsequent to the decision of the Division Bench
of this Court. It is also pertinent to note that the respondents have
failed to establish that they would be entitled to all the benefits
from the year 2012 by showing any Circular / Government
Resolution or any other communication issued by the appellants -
State Authorities. The Division Bench has used the word year 2012
for considering the benefits keeping in mind the filing date of the
writ petitions and has not held that the employee would be entitled
from the year 2012 irrespective of the date of filing of the petition.
9. As stated herein above, the communication dated
18.3.2019 placed on record by learned advocate Mr. Soni and
response by him that the said petitions were filed by said
employees in the year 2015, the authority might not have preferred
any appeal, but has rightly granted benefit from the year 2012.
Further, the decision relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Ekrama
Qureshi in the case of State of Gujarat v. Secretary, Labour, Social
Welfare and Tribunal Development Department and another
C/LPA/827/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2022
(Supra), the facts are totally different than the case on hand. It is
pertinent to note that the Letters Patent Appeals were pending
before this Court which were finally decided in the year 2018 and
subsequent thereto, captioned writ petitions were filed by the
respondents herein. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the said
decision would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
10. In the result, all these appeals are allowed. The
judgment and order dated 25.9.2019 passed in captioned writ
petitions by learned Single Judge is modified and shall read as
under :-
All the respondent shall be entitled to salary and other
benefits at par with those adhoc Lecturers appointed prior to May
2008 and they shall be granted such benefits from the last three
years of preceding the filing of the petition i.e. from the year 2016.
It is stated at bar by learned Assistant Government
Pleader, under instructions, that all the benefits counting from the
year 2016 are already paid to the respondents. The said contention
has not been controverted by the respondents.
Connected applications also stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(A. J. DESAI, J)
Sd/-
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
SAVARIYA
