Gujarat High Court
Khumansinh Vechanbhai Vasava vs State Of Gujarat on 29 April, 2023
Bench: Aniruddha P. Mayee
C/SCA/10735/2016 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10735 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10735 of 2016
==========================================================
KHUMANSINH VECHANBHAI VASAVA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TR MISHRA(483) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 29/04/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Special Civil Application is filed for the
following prayers:-
"(A) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue an order,
direction and/or writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any
other appropriate writ, order or directions, quashing and
setting aside the impugned order dated 03.12.2015
marked Annexure 'C' to this petition and be further
pleased to declare and hold that the petitioner is entitled
for the benefits of 17.10.1988 Government Resolution as
Labour Court has already granted reinstatement with 20%
back wages and continuity of service which has been
confirmed by this Hon'ble Court;
(B) Direct the respondents to pay the arrears arising out of the
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 with 12%
interest thereon;
(C) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your
C/SCA/10735/2016 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2023
Lordships be pleased to direct the respondent to
reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the
submissions made in this petition and in the light of the
judgment annexed with this petition;
(D) Any other and such further relief as the Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper in the interest of justice together with
costs."
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that vide order dated 03.12.2015, the petitioner has been
denied the benefits of Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988 only on the ground of his appointment is in the
year 1990 i.e. after issuance of the Government Resolution
dated 17.10.1988 and therefore, he is not entitled under the
said Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.
2.1 Learned counsel Mr.Mishra submits that the
present issue has now been settled by this Court in catena of
decisions. In support of his contentions, learned counsel
places reliance on the order dated 22.01.2019 passed in
Special Civil Application No.6420 of 2017, order dated
03.12.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No.2899 of
2016 and order dated 04.12.2018 passed in Special Civil
Application No.495 of 2017.
C/SCA/10735/2016 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2023
2.2 It is submitted that in all the said decisions, this
Court has held that the employees who are appointed after
issuance of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 are also
entitled to benefits of said Government Resolution.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Yuvraj
Brahmbhatt could not dispute the said legal position and
submits that this Court has held that even those employees
who are appointed post the Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988 have been granted benefits and they are covered
by the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.
4. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil
Application No.6420 of 2017 has held thus:-
"5. In Kutch District Panchayat v. Mangalbhai K. Rabari,
being Special Civil Application No.15670 of 2005 decided as
per judgment dated 08.10.2014, in turn confirmed in
Letters Patent Appeal No.1381 of 2015 decided on
04.01.2016, it was observed and held in judgment dated
08.10.2014 as under,
"7. Shri Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent
workmen contended that the decision of the
Supreme Court as cited herein above in case of
State of Gujarat Vs. PWD Employees Union & Ors (supra)
would have straightway applicability to the present
C/SCA/10735/2016 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2023
case. The so called inapplicability of GR has been
answered squarely by the Court as there are subsequent
Government Resolutions clarifying such things.
Besides this, in the affidavit in reply at page-47
Courts attention was drawn to indicate that
G.respondent. Dated 17/10/1988 is clarified and given
effect to all those who are subsequently appointed also
and that has been accepted as policy governing such
employment thereafter.
8. Shri Pathak pointed out that learned counsel for
the petitioner is not correct in contending that all were
employed after GR dated 17/10/1988. In fact four
were employed before that. Shri Munshaw at this stage
submitted that he never meant all employees were
employed after the GR and statement annexed to
the employees list would clarify the situation.
11. The Court is of the considered view that the
GR dated 17/10/1988 was no doubt containing reference
to the future employment but the subsequent course
of action and developments as it indicate that the
Government continued employing daily wagers,
temporary hands irrespective of those conditions which
gave rise to a situation where litigations came up
and hence as Shri Pathak has pointed out
clarificatory GR came to be issued and over all facts &
circumstances of the case indicate that the benefits of GR
dated 17/10/1988 were to be extended to all, else it
would have meant to Government employing unfair
labour practice which would have been highly
depreciable.
12. The Court is also of the view that the decision
C/SCA/10735/2016 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2023
cited at the bar in case of State of Gujarat And Others Vs.
PWD Employees Union And Others will have
applicability to the facts & circumstances of the
case and counsel of the petitioners submission qua
some of the workmen were employed after GR dated
17/10/1988 would be of no avail as the judgment itself
has answered that contention squarely."
5.1 In PWD Employees Union through President v. State
of Gujarat, being Special Civil Application No.4662 of
2015, this Court relied on the aforesaid
decision in Kutch District Panchayat (supra). PWD
Employees Union (supra) had a similar set of facts wherein
also the petitioners were denied the benefits of Resolution
dated 17.10.1988 on the ground that their appointments
were subsequent to the date of Resolution dated
17.10.1988."
5. In view of the above position of law, the petitioner
could not have been denied the benefits of Government
Resolution dated 17.10.1988 on the ground that his
appointment was post 01.10.1988 and the benefits of the
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 will have to be
made available to the petitioner with all incidents thereof.
6. In view of the aforesaid observations, the present
Special Civil Application is allowed. The impugned order dated
03.12.2015 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are
C/SCA/10735/2016 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2023
directed to pass necessary orders granting the benefits of the
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and the arrears
which may arise to be paid by virtue of present directions
shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of 10 weeks from
the date of receipt of this order.
7. It is made clear that if the petitioner is not paid the
benefits within a period of ten weeks, then the amount due to
the petitioner under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988
shall carry an interest of 6% per annum till the date of actual
payment. Rule is made absolute in view of the aforesaid
terms. No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.
As a sequel, the civil application also stands disposed of.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
NABILA
