Gujarat High Court
Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited vs Bharatbhai Bhikhabhai Patel on 16 April, 2024
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1973/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1973 of 2024
In
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 11320 of 2024
==================================================
SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LIMITED
Versus
BHARATBHAI BHIKHABHAI PATEL & ORS.
==================================================
Appearance:
MR RUTVIJ S OZA(5594) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,19,2,20,21,22,23,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR SANJAY UDHWANI ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 18
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 16/04/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI)
Heard learned advocate Mr. Rutvij Oza, for the applicant and
Mr. Sanjay Udhwani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
respondent - State.
2. While the captioned Civil Application is for condonation of
delay of 161 days and in all ordinary circumstances the Court
would have adverted to the aspect of condoning or otherwise of
delay, since the papers of the Letters Patent Appeal itself were
available along with the Civil Application, the subject matter and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1973/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2024
undefined
the issue involved in the impugned judgment of learned single
Judge could be visited with by the Court with the help of learned
advocates appearing for the respective parties.
3. The issue involved is about entitlement of the original
petitioners who retired on 30th June of a particular year, to
receive the increment falling due on 1st July, that is immediately
the day next of retirement, which increment was relatable to the
services rendered by the employee in the preceding year.
3.1. There is no gainsaying that the issue is no longer res integra
in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Director
(Admin. & HR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. C.P.Mundinamani & Ors. in
Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023 [SLP(C) No.9185 of 2020] dated
11.4.2023. Identical issue was decided by this Court in State of
Gujarat Vs. Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara which was Letters
Patent Appeal No.868 of 2021 dated 24.7.2022, holding in favour
of the employee, entitling him to the increment.
3.2. As rightly observed by learned single Judge the said
decision in Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara (supra) stood confirmed
by the Supreme Court in view of the decision in C.P.Mundinamani
& Ors. (supra). Since the aforesaid is the position of law obtaining,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1973/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2024
undefined
the Court does not find any good reason to advert to the aspect of
condoning delay.
4. Condoning delay will not serve any purpose in the aforesaid
circumstances, rather would lead to extended litigation, for, the
Court would not be inclined to deal with the Letters Patent Appeal
wherein the judgment and order of learned Single Judge
impugned, for the point it addressed, is no longer a res integra,
not required to be interfered with in that view.
5. Accordingly, the delay is not condoned. The registration of
the Letters Patent Appeal is refused.
Consequentially, Civil Application for stay stands disposed
of.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
phalguni
