District Development Officer vs Patel Jivanlal Maganlal
2024 Latest Caselaw 702 Guj

Gujarat High Court

District Development Officer vs Patel Jivanlal Maganlal on 25 January, 2024

Author: N.V.Anjaria

Bench: N.V.Anjaria

                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




       C/CA/375/2024                               ORDER DATED: 25/01/2024

                                                                                    undefined




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 375 of
                                2024

               In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 991 of 2024

==========================================================
                       DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
                                    Versus
                          PATEL JIVANLAL MAGANLAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MP PRAJAPATI(677) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MS. SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP FOR RESPONDENT STATE
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
           and
           HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI

                              Date : 25/01/2024

                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)

Heard learned advocate Mr. M. P. Prajapati for the applicant and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shruti Dhruve for the respondent-State.

2. While the captioned Civil Application is for condonation of delay of 48 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 advocate and learned Assistant Government

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/375/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2024

undefined

Pleader.

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 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 employee, entitling him 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/375/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2024

undefined

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)

(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) C.M. JOSHI