Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Anantkumar Ramshankar Dave on 25 June, 2024
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/657/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 657 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8135 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 657 of 2022
==========================================================
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Versus
ANANTKUMAR RAMSHANKAR DAVE
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR M D RAHEVER AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR HARSH K RAVAL(9068) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 25/06/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. This appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
1865 emanates from the order dated 05.03.20219 passed by the
learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.8135 of
2017, whereby the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the
same in terms of paragraph Nos. 6(B) and 6(C) of the petition.
At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the prayer Clause
6(B) and (C) in the writ petition:-
"6(B) direct the respondent authorities to apply the
scheme of group insurance and contributory provident fund
scheme to petitioner, and
(C) direct the respondent authorities to maintain service
record of petitioner in the form of service book of
petitioner w.e.f. 30.8.2012 and also to issue identity card "
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/657/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2024
undefined
2. Thus, the learned Single Judge has directed the respondents
to apply the scheme of group insurance and contributory fund
scheme in case of the opponent - workman and also to maintain
his service record in the form of service book w.e.f. 30.08.2012.
It appears that there were various litigation inter se between the
opponent and the State authorities which are referred by learned
Single Judge in paragraphs Nos.3, 3.1., 4 and 5. The same are
incorporated as under:
"3. The petitioner has narrated in the petition his service
details and has mentioned about filing of Special
Civil Application No.1694 of 2000, further Special
Civil Application No.12794 of 2009 and other connected
Civil Applications and Letters Patent Appeals,
preferring of Special Leave Petition before the Supreme
Court etc. It is also stated that earlier the petitioner has
preferred Special Civil Application No.21321 of
2016 in the capacity of Party-in-Person with
same prayers, but the said petition was withdrawn
as the Party-in-Person did not qualify to be competent
to conduct the matter whereafter the present petition
is filed.
3.1 All the above litigations were pursuant to the judgment
and award of the Labour Court, Junagadh, in Reference
(LCJ) No.240 of 1993, whereby the petitioner's
termination was set aside and Labour Court had
directed reinstatement of the petitioner with
continuity of service. At the end of the long drawn
litigation, the said judgment and award sought to be
applied in favour of the petitioner and the
petitioner was reinstated with continuity of service.
4. As regards the prayer for applying the scheme of group
insurance, the said request of the petitioner came to be
refused by Range Forest Officer, North Mountain
Range, Junagadh, by communication dated
04.10.2016 in which it was stated that the
group insurance benefit was not liable to be given to the
daily-rated workmen.
5. Resolution dated 19.05.2009 of the Road and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/657/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2024
undefined
Building Department of the State Government, which is
extension of Resolution dated 17.10.1988, deals with the
grant of group insurance benefit to the dailyrated
workmen under the State Government. Resolution dated
17.10.1988 applies to all the departments of the
State Government along with additions and
clarifications pertaining to the said Resolution ."
3. It appears that incorrect observations have been made in
paragraph No. 3 of the order since though the opponent -
workman was given fresh appointment w.e.f. 30.08.2012, the
learned Single Judge has referred the aspect of continuity of
service also. Except this mistake, we do not find that the order is
tainted with any infirmity or illegality since after the fresh
appointment of the opponent on 30.08.2012, he would be
governed by the Resolution dated 19.05.2009 of the Road and
Building Department of the State Government, which is extension
of Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and the same deals with the
grant of group insurance benefit to the daily-rated workmen
under the State Government. Bare perusal of the aforesaid
resolution clarifies that the case of the opponent - workman
would get squarely covered and he has to be construed as a
member of the group insurance scheme. The resolution
specifically says that the consent of the daily-rated workmen is
also not necessary for getting the benefit of the group insurance
scheme.
4. It appears that it is the case of the appellant - State that
since no benefit is arising from Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is
paid to the opponent, he would not be entitled to the benefit of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/657/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2024
undefined
group insurance scheme, as envisaged in Resolution dated
19.05.2009.
5. The Resolution dated 19.05.2009 has been made effective
w.e.f. 01.04.2009. Thus, even if the opponent has not got any
benefit arising from Resolution dated 17.10.1988 once he has
been appointed w.e.f. 30.08.2012, his case would be governed by
the Resolution dated 19.05.2009 and he is entitled for the benefit
of group insurance scheme. The contents of the resolution dated
19.05.2009 reveal that the benefit of group insurance scheme was
available to the daily rated employees since 1981. Since the said
scheme is made compulsory and the consent of the daily rated
employees is also not necessary, we agree with the observations
made by the learned Single Judge.
6. Hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal fails and the same
is hereby rejected.
7. Consequentially, the Civil Application (For Stay) will not
survive and the same is disposed of accordingly
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
NAIR SMITA V./18
