State Of Gujarat vs Hathila Ratanbhai Gobarbhai
2024 Latest Caselaw 703 Guj

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Hathila Ratanbhai Gobarbhai on 25 January, 2024

Author: N.V.Anjaria

Bench: N.V.Anjaria

                                                                                  NEUTRAL CITATION




       C/CA/386/2024                             ORDER DATED: 25/01/2024

                                                                                  undefined




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 386 of
                                2024

              In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1520 of 2024

==========================================================
                             STATE OF GUJARAT
                                   Versus
                       HATHILA RATANBHAI GOBARBHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. SHRUTI DHRUVE, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Applicant(s) No. 1,2
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

     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 Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shruti Dhruve for the applicant-State.

2. While the captioned Civil Application is for condonation of delay of 101 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.

                                                                                     NEUTRAL CITATION




      C/CA/386/2024                                ORDER DATED: 25/01/2024

                                                                                    undefined

3. The issue involved is about entitlement of the original petitioner 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 employee 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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/386/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2024

undefined

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