Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Gujarat Rajya Nivrut Karmachari ... on 8 January, 2024
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/9/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 9 of 2024
In
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 37312 of 2023
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
GUJARAT RAJYA NIVRUT KARMACHARI SAKHAVATI MAHAMANDAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR, AAG with MR K.M.ANTANI, AGP for the
Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR AS ASTHAVADI(3698) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date : 08/01/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
Heard learned Additional Advocate General Ms.Manisha
Lavkumar assisted by learned Assistant Government Pleader
Mr.Kanva Antani for the applicant State.
2. While the captioned Civil Application is for condonation of
delay of 54 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 issue involved in the impugned judgment of learned single
Judge could be visited with by the court with the help of learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/9/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
undefined
senior advocate and learned Assistant Government Pleader.
3. The issue involved is about entitlement of the employees of
the petitioner Union who retired on 30 th June of the different
years, to receive the increment falling due on 1 st July, that is
immediately the day next of retirement which increment was
relatable to the services rendered by the employees for the
preceding year.
3.2 There is no gainsaying, rather it was fairly admitted by
learned counsels appearing for the State 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 employees,
entitling them 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, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/9/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
undefined
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.
6. Learned senior advocate and learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the applicant State, however wanted to,
and took the court to the observations of learned single Judge in
para 13 of the impugned judgment to submit that though the
issue is no longer res integra, time may be granted to the
applicant State to enable it to come out with the policy in
relation to the implementation of the directions of the Supreme
Court regarding entitling the employees to receive and to be
paid the increment falling on due on 1 st July post their
retirement on 30th June.
6.1 There are too weighty reasons which does not persuade
the court to accede to the request of the applicant, firstly the
court while dealing with the Civil Application and the Letters
Patent Appeal, cannot address any aspect except the legal issue
involved and arising from the judgment and order of learned
single Judge. Observations of learned single Judge cannot
navigate the Letters Patent Bench to arrest the order once the
law is decided by the Supreme Court. As far as the request of
the State about coming out with the policy to implement the
directions of the Supreme Court and the payment of increment
are concerned, it is domain of the State. For any court of law the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/9/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
undefined
directions of the Supreme Court is the law of the land.
7. Accordingly this Civil Application is disposed of as not
entertained.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J)
Manshi
