Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Pravinji Kacharaji Gol on 18 January, 2024
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/249/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 249 of
2024
In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 37606 of 2023
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PRAVINJI KACHARAJI GOL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SANJAY UDHWANI, AGP for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,10,11,12,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 18/01/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sanjay
Udhwani for the applicant State and its authorities.
2. While the captioned Civil Application is for condonation of
delay of 53 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/249/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2024
undefined
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 Assistant Government Pleader 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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/249/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2024
undefined
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 1st July post their
retirement on 30th June.
7. Accordingly this Civil Application is disposed of as not
entertained.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
Manshi
