Gujarat High Court
Rameshbhai Hajabhai Dangar vs Range Forest Officer on 14 February, 2024
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15045/2023 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15045 of 2023
========================================================
RAMESHBHAI HAJABHAI DANGAR
Versus
RANGE FOREST OFFICER
========================================================
Appearance:
MS MAMTA R VYAS(994) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR SAHIL TRIVEDI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 14/02/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Mamta Vyas on behalf of the
petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Sahil Trivedi on
behalf of respondent- State.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner inter alia raises a grievance as
regards non consideration of the petitioner's case for grant of benefit under
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.
3. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocate Ms. Vyas, it
would appear that while the petitioner had joined the services of the
respondent Department in the year 1990 his services were terminated in the
year 1991 and whereas the petitioner had initiated reference (LCJ) No. 151
of 1991 before the learned Labour Court, Junagadh and whereas vide an
award dated 16.02.2000, the learned Labour Court had directed
reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service.
4. It would appear that said award had been challenged by the
respondent herein before this Court by preferring Special Civil Application
No. 9633 of 2000 and whereas a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15045/2023 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2024
undefined
vide an order dated 13.09.2000, had permitted the petitioner therein -
respondent herein to approach the learned Labour Court for filing
application for setting aside the ex-parte award. It would appear that the
petitioner therein- respondent herein had approached the learned Labour
Court and whereas the proceedings were renumbered as Reference (LCJ)
No. 211 of 2001 and vide an award dated 02.08.2013, the learned Labour
Court had directed reinstatement with continuity without any backwages.
5. It would also appear that the said decision had neither been
challenged by the respondents and on the other hand, it would also appear
that the said award, contains discussion as regard entitlement of the
petitioner for being treated as having served 240 days per year in the
interregnum.
6. It is the case of learned Advocate Ms. Mamta Vyas on behalf of the
petitioner that though the petitioner had succeeded before the learned
Labour Court, yet, the respondents have not treated interregnum service as
continuous and not considered the case of the petitioner for grant of benefit
under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.
7. Learned Advocate Ms. Vyas would further submit that as such, in
case of similarly situated persons, upon direction of this Court in a writ
petition preferred by the petitioners, the respondents have calculated the
entitlement of the employees therein for grant of benefit under Government
Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and whereas all the benefits as entitled to had
been granted to the employee concerned.
8. Since it would appear that the issue of petitioners of Special Civil
Application No. 10897 of 2020 and Special Civil Application No. 11904 of
2020, being similarly situated persons could not be contested by learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15045/2023 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2024
undefined
AGP Mr. Trivedi, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the
observations of the learned Co-ordinate Bench would also be relevant for
deciding the present petition. Hence paragraphs No. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the
decision are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:
"6. The petitioners were reinstated in March, 2001. Recovery
Applications were moved for grant of 75% back wages as directed by this Court
for the period from 21.01.1989 to 21.03.2000 and for the period from
22.03.2000 to 20.12.2007. Both these Recovery Applications were allowed by
the orders passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh and the amounts were
paid to the petitioners. Despite the period therefore being undisputedly a
period where the petitioners were paid their wages, their tenure of service
rendered was treated as Zero. Moreover, when this Court by an order
dated 03.02.2020 had directed that the cases of the petitioners be considered for
the benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and Circular dated 15.09.2014,
they were informed that the State was contemplating challenging the order
giving such directions by filing Letters Patent Appeal. That communication is
dated 21.07.2020. Even the impugned communication is of the same date
rejecting the case of the petitioners.
7. Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned AGP for the respondents would rely on the
reply filed, particularly, para Nos.8 and 9 thereof which would indicate that the
case of the petitioners was considered after taking into consideration that the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Gujarat Vs. PWD &
Forest Employees Union reported in 2019(15) SCC 248 and the eligibility criteria
as read out in the Circular dated 15.9.2014 were considered and it was found that
they had rendered services of 240 days only in one year.
8. Considering the fact that, post their termination and award of
reinstatement with continuity of service was passed, that order on a challenge
directed the respondents to pay 75% back-wages for the periods as aforesaid
which amounts were actually paid, it is not open for the State thereafter to
contend that the petitioner concerned workman has not completed 240 days in
each year, particularly when their Recovery Applications for the periods as
aforesaid were allowed and the amounts thereunder were paid.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitions are allowed. Thereby, the
impugned communication dated 21.07.2020 is quashed and set aside and the
respondents are further directed to extend the benefits of the Government
Resolutions dated 17.10.1988 and Circular dated 15.09.2014 to the petitioners
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15045/2023 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2024
undefined
with all consequential benefits in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. PWD & Forest Employees Union
reported in 2019 (15) SCC 248. Such exercise shall be carried out within a period
of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment.
10. However, it is made clear that as far as other benefits are concerned such
as Leave Encashment, Travel Allowance, LTC etc., liberty is reserved to apply
after decision of the Appeal pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court."
9. Having regard to the observations and direction of the learned Co-
ordinate Bench, the same benefit is required to be accorded to the present
petitioner. Hence the respondents are directed to extend benefit of
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and 15.09.2014 to the petitioner
with all consequential benefits in light of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of State of Gujarat Vs. PWD and Forest and
Employees' Union, reported in (2019) 15 SCC 248, such exercise to be
carried out within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy
of this decision and whereas appropriate disbursement to be made within a
period of six weeks thereafter, failing which the petitioner would be entitled
for interest at the rate of 6% upon the arrears.
10. It is clarified that other benefits such as leave encashment, travel
allowance and LTC etc., liberty is reserved to apply after decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending appeal whereas insofar as Higher
Pay Scale is concerned the petitioner would be at liberty to apply for the
same after decision of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Letters
Patent Appeal No. 1423 of 2023.
11. With the above observations the present petition stands disposed of
as allowed. Direct service is permitted.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
NIRU
