Gujarat High Court

Rameshkumar Bachubhai Meghani vs District Panchayat on 17 April, 2025

Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati

Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                          C/SCA/16904/2020                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025

                                                                                                                undefined




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                    R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16904 of 2020
                                                        With
                                    R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16905 of 2020

                     FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                     HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

                     ==========================================================

                                  Approved for Reporting                     Yes           No

                     ==========================================================
                                             RAMESHKUMAR BACHUBHAI MEGHANI
                                                           Versus
                                                DISTRICT PANCHAYAT & ANR.
                     ==========================================================
                     Appearance:
                     MR ANAND B GOGIA(5849) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                     MS KAJAL L KALWANI(6623) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                     MS MUSKAN A GOGIA(6624) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                     RAVI B SHAH(5346) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                     MR AKASH GUPTA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                     ==========================================================

                       CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

                                                         Date : 17/04/2025

                                                        ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr.Anand B. Gogia, learned advocate appearing for the

petitioners, Mr.Ravi B. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the

respondent no.1 and Mr.Akash Gupta, learned A.G.P. appearing for

the respondent no.2.

2. The issue involved in both the captioned petitions is being

identical in nature, the same are heard together and the common

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/16904/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025

undefined

judgment is passed in both the petitions, upon request made by the

learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

3. The facts of the petition being Special Civil Application

No.16904 of 2020 are taken as lead matter.

4. By way of the present petitions, the petitioners have prayed

for the following reliefs:-

"A. Your Lordship be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

B. Your Lordships may be pleased to hold, declare and direct that the Petitioner is entitled to re-fixation of his pay, granting and adding notional increments for the period from October 2004 to December 2009 i.e. for the period for which he was on fixed pay and be granted all consequential benefits.

C. Your Lordships may be pleased to hold declare and direct that Petitioner is entitled to be treated under old pension scheme as provided in Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 on his retirement etc.

CC. Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the Respondent(s) to give Petitioner(s) regular appointment in regular pay scale treating it to be regular from initial date of appointment with all the consequential benefits."

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/16904/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025

undefined

5. The father of the petitioner was serving as a headmaster in a

school under the District Panchayat, Ahmedabad. The father of the

petitioner passed away on 17.10.2000 in the course of service. The

petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground on 13.10.2004.

Upon satisfactorily completing the period of five years, the

petitioner herein is seeking to be regularized on regular pay scale

on the post of clerk in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 + grade pay

of Rs.1900 and the services of the petitioner herein be considered

as continuous from the initial date of appointment on ad-hoc basis

for the purpose of regularization.

5.1. Mr.Anand Gogia, learned advocate appearing for the

petitioners placed reliance on the judgment dated 14.03.2024

passed in Special Civil Application No.10738 of 2020 and allied

matters wherein, in an identical issue, which was raised before the

Court on the basis of the government resolution dated 15.06.2004,

the said petitions were allowed, directing the authorities to issue

appointment orders whereby, the period from the date of

appointment of the petitioners therein be treated as on regular pay

scale. Placing reliance on the aforesaid order, it is submitted that

the continuity of service be considered from the date of initial

appointment and the case of the petitioners be considered on

regular service upon completion of 5 years from the date of initial

appointment for all other purposes and the arrears to be counted

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/16904/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025

undefined

from the date of regularization and the petitioners would be entitled

to the consequential benefits upon such placement, including the

benefit of arrears etc., three years prior to the date of filing of the

petition.

6. Mr.Ravi Shah, learned advocate appearing for the respondent

no.1 is not in a position to controvert the aforesaid position of law,

as referred to by Mr.Gogia, learned advocate for the petitioners.

7. It is apposite to refer to the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by

the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.717 of 2024.

Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said order read as under:-

"2. By the order dated 11.07.2024 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.659 of 2024, this Court on a similar issue has held thus:-

"14. The employees before us have contended that they are entitled to arrears from their initial date of appointment and not from 01.01.2020, whereas the State has prayed for restricting it for three years.

15. In our considered opinion, the date 01.01.2020 cannot be made applicable in all the cases uniformly in wake of the fact that the date of appointment of each of the employees and date of filing of the writ petitions is also different.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/16904/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025

undefined

16. We have heard on this issue. Before we may pass final orders, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Dass (supra). While dealing with the issue of delay and latches caused in filing the writ petitions challenging termination orders, the Apex Court has held thus:

"10. In the case of pension the cause of action actually continues from month to month. That, however, cannot be a ground to overlook delay in filing the petition. It would depend upon the fact of each case. If petition is filed beyond a reasonable period say three years normally the Court would reject the same or restrict the relief which could be granted to a reasonable period of about three years. The High Court did not examine whether on merit appellant had a case. If on merits it would have found that there was no scope for interference, it would have dismissed the writ petition on that score alone."

17. Thereafter, in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra), where the issue pertains to the claim of pension, the Apex Court has held thus:

"5. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/16904/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025

undefined

reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. In so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition."

18. The aforementioned both the judgements are considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, JT 2022 (5) S.C. 470. It is held thus:

"12 In Tarsem Singh (supra), the delay of 16 years in approaching the courts affected the consequential claim for arrears and thus, this Court set aside the direction to pay arrears for 16 years with interest. The Court restricted "the relief relating to arrears to only three years before the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/16904/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025

undefined

date of writ petition, or from the date of demand to date of writ petition, whichever was lesser".

Further, the grant of interest on arrears was also denied.

13. The aforesaid ratio in Tarsem Singh (supra) has been followed by this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Yogendra Shrivastava, (2010) 12 SCC 538 and Asger Ibrahim Amin v. Life Insurance Corporation of India., (2016) 13 SCC

14. In the facts of the present case, it is accepted that the respondent-Corporation had accepted the interpretation rendered by the High Court of Gujarat to the Scheme whereby the appellants, on financial upgradation, would be entitled to the higher grade payscale of the next promotional post, which is Rs.5,000- 8,000/- in the present case. As noted above, the impugned judgment of the Division Bench accepts the said position and grants the appellants the said payscale but restricts the benefit from the date of the judgment of the Single Judge in the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants, that is, with effect from 31st July 2018. The Division Bench should not have taken the date of the decision/judgment of the Single Judge for grant of the said benefit in view of the decision and ratio in Tarsem Singh (supra) which has been followed in several other decisions. That apart, the date of the decision of the Single Judge is a fortuitous circumstance. Only the date of filing of the writ petition is relevant while examining the question of delay and laches or limitation. The

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/16904/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025

undefined

appellants would, in consonance with the case law referred to above, be entitled to the arrears for three years before the date offiling of the Writ Petition."

19. The Apex Court has held that the claim which is related to service benefits, one of the exceptions to the said rule of delay and latches relating to a continuing wrong. It is held that where a service-related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is exception to the exception. Ultimately, it is held that the High Courts will restrict consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of 3 years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. The Supreme court in case of Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak (supra) has held that the High Court should not have taken the date of decision / judgement of the learned Single Judge for grant of benefits in view of the decision and ration in Tarsem Singh (supra), and further it is clarified that "only the date of filing of the writ petition is relevant while examining the question of delay and latches or limitation, and the arrears are to be confined for three years before the date of filing of the writ petition.".

20. Hence, the date of filing of the respective writ petitions becomes very relevant while restricting the arrears for three years. In the present group of appeals, the writ petitions have been filed after considerable delay and hence, the grant of actual arrears to such writ petitioners is governed as per the law enunciated

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/16904/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025

undefined

by the Apex Court in the aforementioned decisions. The arrears are required to be restricted to the period of 3 years prior to the date of filing of each of the respective petitions. The reliance placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lekh Ram (supra) will not apply to the present facts, since the issue with regard to delay in filing the writ petitions by the employee was neither raised nor examined.

21. This directions will only be confined to those employees, who have belatedly filed writ petitioners beyond three years questioning the action of the State authorities in conferring the regular pay-scale belatedly, and not from their initial date of appointment.

22. Hence, the directions issued by the learned Single Judges in the respective writ petitions is altered and all the employees shall be entitled to the actual arrears from a period of 3 years prior to the date of filing of the respective writ petitions. It is clarified that since we have not disturbed the decision with regard to the conferment of the regular payscale from the initial date of appointment, the pay fixation and other benefits to all the employees shall counted notionally for the intervening period.

23. With these observations, the present appeals are disposed of . As a sequel, the connected applications are also stand disposed of.

3. In view of the observations made in the aforementioned appeals, the present appeals also stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order. As a

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/16904/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025

undefined

sequel, the connected applications are also stand disposed of."

8. Considering the aforesaid undisputed facts and the judgment

dated 14.03.2024 passed in Special Civil Application No.10738 of

2020 and allied matters, which is relied upon by Mr.Gogia, learned

advocate for the petitioners, the petitioners herein are identically

placed to the petitioners of said Special Civil Application No.10738

of 2020 and allied matters.