Gujarat High Court
Gujarat Maritime Board vs Amrutbhai Lalabhai Solanki on 6 February, 2024
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/572/2024 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 572 of
2024
In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 34746 of 2023
==========================================================
GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD
Versus
AMRUTBHAI LALABHAI SOLANKI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
MS. SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 8, 9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 06/02/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia for the
applicant.
2. While the captioned Civil Application is for condonation of delay
of 15 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 the controversy addressed by
learned single Judge in the impugned judgment and order could be visited
with by the court with the help of learned advocate for the applicant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/572/2024 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2024
undefined
3. The issue involved is about entitlement of the original petitioners-
the respondents herein who retired on 30 th 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 employees in the preceding year.
4. There is no gainsaying, rather it was fairly admitted by learned
advocate appearing for the applicant that the issue is no longer res
integra in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the 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. 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).
5. Learned single Judge took note of decision of the Supreme Court in
C.P.Mundinamani (supra) and disposed of the petition by issuing
certain directions.
5.1 Para 14 of the judgment and order of learned single Judge contains
such final directions, with which the petition came to be disposed of.
They are reproduced,
"14. Having regard to the above discussion, observations and conclusion
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/572/2024 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2024
undefined
and since this Court is taking up a group of matters with varied
respondents, appropriate directions to ensure proper verification of
individual cases is required to be passed. Hence, the following directions
are passed:-
(i) The petitioners shall make an application for grant of one increment
which accrued in their favour on the date after their retirement with a
copy of this order before the official respondent/appropriate appointing
authority. Such an application shall be made by the petitioners within a
period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
(ii) Upon such application being received by the concerned official
respondent/appropriate appointing authority, the official respondents/
appropriate appointing authority shall verify the date of retirement of the
petitioner and whereas, if the date of retirement of the petitioner would
be on the 30th June of the year in question, it would be deemed that the
petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of one increment due from the
next date.
(iii) Upon such verification as above, the respondents/appropriate
appointing authorities are directed to pay the increment due to the
petitioner and whereas the respondents/appropriate appointing
authorities are also directed to revise the pension and other retiral
benefits including all consequential benefits and arrears thereof as
available to the petitioners.
(iv) The above exercise shall be completed by the official
respondents/appropriate appointing authorities within a period of eight
(08) weeks from the date of receipt of the application preferred by the
petitioner.
(v) It is clarified that in case the official respondents/ appropriate
appointing authorities do not complete the exercise within a period of
eight weeks as stated herein above including making payment to the
present petitioners within such time, then the petitioners shall be entitled
to claim interest at the rate of 6% from the date such amount fell due till
the date of payment.
(vi) In case, any of the petitioners are aggrieved by the verification
conducted by the official respondents/appropriate appointing authority,
it would be open for such petitioners to make application for revival of
their petitions."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/572/2024 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2024
undefined
5.2 It is manifest that the aforesaid directions are issued by learned
single Judge to ensure that the law of the land declared by the Supreme
Court on the issue in C.P.Mundinamani (supra) is adhered to and
compliance is acted upon.
6. Thus, there is no merit in the challenge to the judgment and order
of learned single Judge. Therefore, condoning the delay will not serve
any purpose. In that view, the delay is not condoned.
7. The registration of the Letters Patent Appeal is refused.
Consequentially, Civil Application for stay stands disposed of.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
C.M. JOSHI
