Gujarat High Court

Dinesh S/O Parshottam Damji Solanki vs State Of Gujarat on 17 April, 2025

Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati

Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati

                                                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/SCA/20654/2016                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025

                                                                                                                    undefined




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                      R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20654 of 2016


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
                       =============================================

                                      Approved for Reporting                   Yes             No

                       =============================================
                                           DINESH S/O PARSHOTTAM DAMJI SOLANKI
                                                          Versus
                                                 STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                       =============================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR ANAND B GOGIA(5849) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MR BB GOGIA(5851) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MS MUSKAN A GOGIA(6624) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MR AAKASH GUPTA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
                       =============================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

                                                         Date : 17/04/2025

                                                         ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By way of present petition, the petitioner herein has

prayed for the following reliefs:

"A. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

B. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to quash and set aside Order No.Vi Ja Ka/Makam-2016-17/1428 dated July 30, 2016 (30.07.2016) passed by Respondent No.2, Annexure - A, it being illegal, invalid and arbitrary.

C. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to hold, declare and direct by appropriate writ order or direction that the Petitioner is entitled to all the benefits as available to him under GR dated October 17, 1988 (17.10.1988) on competition of 5 years, 10 years service and 15 years to

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20654/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025

undefined

be calculated from 1990 as continuous service till reinstated and thereafter with all consequential benefits of salary, pay fixation, with its arrears status of permanency etc. with interest on the amount as due at the rate of 9% till the amount as due is paid.

CC. Your Lordship be pleased to hold, declare and direct that the Petitioner is entitled to be granted all the benefits as available under GR dated 17.10.1988 including re-fixation of pay, pension and other entitlements etc by considering the intervening period from 16.10.1995 to 08.07.2013 from date of termination till reinstatement as continuous service and the petitioner is entitled to all the consequential benefits. And the Respondents be directed to correct the orders dated 19.09.2019, 11.02.2020, 20.08.2024 and 01.10.2024 accordingly.

D. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to pass any other appropriate order or orders as deemed Just and proper.

E. Exclamplary Costs be awarded to the petitioners, as he is dragged in third round of litigation without any valid reason."

2. Heard Mr. Anand B. Gogia, learned advocate appearing

for the petitioner and Mr. Aakash Gupta, learned AGP

appearing for the respondent - State.

3. The petitioner herein raised an industrial dispute before

the learned Labour Court, Rajkot, against the illegal

termination of the petitioner wherein, by the award below

Exh.34 dated 10.06.2011 passed in Reference LCR No.137 of

1997, which is duly produced at page 23, Annexure - B, the

petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service. Resultantly,

the said Reference came to be allowed in part.

4. The said award was subject matter of challenge by the

respondent - State by preferring Special Civil Application

No.14734 of 2011, which came to be dismissed by oral

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20654/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025

undefined

judgment dated 16.01.2013. The said order is duly produced at

page 63, Annexure - R-II.

5. Mr. Anand B. Gogia, learned advocate appearing for the

petitioner submitted that in light of the reinstatement by

award of the Labour Court dated 10.06.2011, the petitioner

herein is entitled to the benefits of the Government Resolution

dated 17.10.1988 in accordance with the services rendered by

the petitioner herein.

5.1 To substantiate the aforesaid contention, Mr. Anand B.

Gogia, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner relied on

the decision rendered in case of Deepali Gundu Vs. Kranti

Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, reported in 2013 (10) SCC

324 and the decision rendered in case of CBI & Ors. Vs.

Dragendra Singh Jadan, reported in AIR 2022 SC 3779. Placing

reliance on the aforesaid decisions, Mr. Gogia, learned

advocate submitted that the issue is no longer res-integra

when the reinstatement is granted; the same has put a person

back to the same position and in light of the aforesaid, the

petitioner herein be accorded the benefits of the Government

Resolution dated 17.10.1988 from the initial date of

appointment.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20654/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025

undefined

6. Mr. Aakash Gupta, learned AGP appearing for the

respondent - State is not in a position to controvert the

aforesaid legal contentions raised by Mr. Anand B. Gogia,

learned advocate appearing for the petitioner.

7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the

respective parties, it emerges that the petitioner herein by

award passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot, in Reference (LCR)

No.137 of 1997, is reinstated in service. Considering the

position of law, as referred above, reinstatement means

putting an employee to the original position.

8. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the ratio laid down

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of CBI & Others Vs.

Dragendra Singh Jadan, reported in AIR 2022 SC 3779 : 2022

(8) SCC 378, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court clarified and

explained the word 'reinstatement' in paragraphs 20 to 23,

which read thus:

"20. We find no infirmity with the concurrent findings of the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court. There is a difference between reappointment and reinstatement. Reinstatement means to return a person or thing to its previous position or status. An order of reinstatement puts a person back to the same position.

21. The Tribunal had granted the Respondent, the relief of reinstatement. Considering that the Respondent had not actually rendered service to the Appellant-Bank and that he had been earning in the intervening period, the Tribunal denied him back wages. The Tribunal and

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/20654/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025

undefined

the High Court (both the Single Bench and the Division Bench) have in effect and substance found the termination of service of the Respondent to be wrongful.

22. The Appellant-Bank cannot take advantage of its own wrong of wrongfully dismissing the Respondent from service, to deny him the benefit of seniority, promotion and other benefits to which he would have been entitled, if he had attended to his duties.