Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Arjanbhai Motibhai Malivad on 22 January, 2024
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2017/2023 ORDER DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2017 of
2023
In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 34213 of 2023
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
ARJANBHAI MOTIBHAI MALIVAD
==========================================================
Appearance:
RONAK RAVAL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Applicant(s)
No. 1,2
MR HB SINGH(2073) for the Respondent(s) No.
1,10,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,2,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3,30,32,33,34,35,36,37,
38,39,4,40,41,42,44,45,46,47,48,49,5,50,51,52,53,55,56,57,59,6,60,64,65,66,
67,68,7,70,71,74,9
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No.
11,19,20,21,31,43,54,58,61,62,63,69,72,73,8
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 22/01/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Ronak Raval for
the applicant-State and advocate Mr. H. B. Singh for the respondents.
2. While the captioned Civil Application is for condonation of delay
of 375 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2017/2023 ORDER DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
impugned judgment of learned single Judge could be visited with by the
court with the help of learned Assistant Government Pleader and learned
advocate.
3. The issue involved is about entitlement of the original petitioners
who retired on 30th 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.
3.1 There is no gainsaying, rather it was fairly admitted by learned
Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the applicant-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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2017/2023 ORDER DATED: 22/01/2024
undefined
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.
5. Accordingly, the delay is not condoned. The registration of the
Letters Patent Appeal is refused. Consequentially, Civil Application for
stay stands disposed of.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
C.M. JOSHI
