Gujarat High Court
G.G. Hospital (Guru Gobindsigh Jooth ... vs Manubhai Jodhabhai Gamara on 14 February, 2024
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/61/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 61 of 2024
In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 432 of 2024
==========================================================
G.G. HOSPITAL (GURU GOBINDSIGH JOOTH HOSPITAL)
Versus
MANUBHAI JODHABHAI GAMARA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. SANJAY UDHWANI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 14/02/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
The present is an application whereby the applicant-State has
prayed to condone the delay of 521 days.
2. In all ordinary circumstances, the court would have adverted to the
merits of the prayer for condoning delay but since the papers of the
Letters Patent Appeal were placed before the court, with the help of
learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sanjay Udhwani appearing for
the State, the court could consider the subject matter and the issue
involved in the judgment and order of learned single Judge dated
24.06.2022.
3. The controversy involved was in respect of the claim of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/61/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2024
undefined
original petitioner-respondent herein to reckon his services from the
initial date of joining for the purpose of payment of pension and other
retirement benefits. The prayers, which were made in the petition by the
petitioners who were daily-rated workmen since April, 1993 and July,
1995 respectively engaged in the office of the respondent, advanced the
claim that since they served continuously and uninterruptedly, they were
entitled to the benefits of the State Government's Resolution dated
17.10.1988 and that all the benefits including pension becoming due
thereby were payable to them from the date of entry in service.
4. Learned single Judge allowed the Special Civil Application
entitling the petitioner to the benefit of Public Holidays and other
allowances, it was further directed that the respondents shall fix the
pension of the petitioner by counting his pensionable service from the
initial date of joining the service and that the petitioner would be
accordingly entitled to receive the pension for his entire length of service.
4.1 The operative part of direction of learned single Judge extracted
from paragraph No.4 reads as under,
"In view of the aforesaid observations of the Division Bench, the
petitions are allowed. The stand of the respondents in denying the
benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988
without considering the award having granted continuity of service is set
aside. Once it has been established that the petitioners have been
reinstated with continuity of service, the benefits of the Resolution dated
17.10.1988 ought to be granted to the petitioners from their initial date
of appointment. The respondent shall carry out the exercise of
computing the benefits to be paid within a period of 12 weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this order. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent.
It is clarified that while extending the benefits of the Resolution dated
17.10.1988, the five allowances and leave encashment for the present
shall not be granted to the petitioners at present. Their case for such
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/61/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2024
undefined
benefits be considered subject to the outcome of the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending Special Leave to Appeal."
5. In allowing the petition and the prayers, learned single Judge relied
on the decision of this court in Executive Engineer, Panchayat Vs.
Samudabhai Jyotibhai Bhedi [2017(4)GLR 2952] in which the
Division Bench of this court in terms held that where the daily-rated
workman had rendered continuous service during his tenure, for the
purpose of extending the pensionary benefits, the services could be
deserved to be counted from the date of initial entry.
5.1 In this case, the court found that the services of the respondent-
workman was continuous and accordingly the decision in Samudabhai
Jyotibhai Bhedi (supra) was applied. Since the decision of learned single
Judge stands covered by decision in Samudabhai Jyotibhai Bhedi (supra)
and the challenge thereto is meritless, no purpose would be served in
condoning the delay. Learned Assistant Government Pleader when
queried about the position emanating from Samudabhai Jyotibhai Bhedi
(supra), he was entirely at his receiving end.
6. At this stage, it could be pointed out by learned Assistant
Government Pleader that learned single Judge has also granted the
benefits of Public Holidays, Transport Allowance, Travelling Allowance
and LTC. The issue of extending these benefits of allowance to the daily-
rated workman is pending before the Supreme Court, it was stated. In
view of this position obtaining, it is clarified that the respondents shall
not be obliged, subject to final decision of the Supreme Court to pay the
said benefits to the workman pursuant to the impugned judgment and
order of learned single Judge, however, in the event the issue is decided
in favor of the dailyrated workman, the payment shall be made to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/61/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2024
undefined
respondents herein accordingly.
7. In the aforesaid view, the application for condoning delay is not
entertained. The delay is not condoned. The Registry shall refuse the
registration of the Letters Patent Appeal.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
C.M. JOSHI
