Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ishwar Bhagvanbhai Vaghela on 22 April, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1764/2024 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1764 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14945 of 2023
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1764 of 2024
=============================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Versus
ISHWAR BHAGVANBHAI VAGHELA
=============================================
Appearance:
MS NIRALI SARDA, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR MURALI N DEVNANI(1863) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 22/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties
have submitted that the present appeal may be disposed of in
terms of the order dated 02.01.2025 passed in the identical
matters.
2. Hence, the present appeal is disposed of in terms of the
order dated 02.01.2025 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.9
of 2025, which reads as under : -
"1. The present appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, 1865, is directed against the order dated 02.09.2023 passed
by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.12967 of
2023. The said writ petition was decided along with the group of
petitions.
2. At the outset, learned Additional Advocate General
Ms.Manisha Lavkumar Shah, appearing with learned Assistant
Government Pleader Mr.Sahil Trivedi, has submitted that the original
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1764/2024 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
writ petition has been filed by the Vadali Taluka Nivrut Karmachari
Mandal, wherein a list of 77 Members has been annexed at Annexure-
A, which includes the name of daily wager at Sr.No.54- Mohanbhai
Punjabhai Chamar, who is not entitled to the benefit of any
increment. In support of her submissions, she has placed reliance on
the order dated 03.05.2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.515 of 2024.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Apurva A. Dave has submitted that
liberty may be reserved in favour of the said employee to approach
the appellant authority claiming similar benefit.
4. In our considered opinion since Mohanbhai Punjabhai
Chamar, whose name figures at Sr.No.54 of Annexure Á' is a Daily
Wager, he would not be entitled to any benefits of one increment,
which is made available to regular employees, hence the order passed
by the learned single judge apro pos him is quashed and set aside,
after his retirement. However, it is clarified that it will be open for
Mohanbhai Punjabhai Chamar to approach the appellant-authority to
prove that he is entitled to benefit of one increment.
5. For the rest of the members of the original petitioner -
Mandal is concerned, the present Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of
in terms of the following order passed in number of appeals claiming
one increment.
6. It is an established fact that there are various Writ Petitions
filed by numerous employees after the judgment was rendered by the
learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.10308 of 2021
dated 11.08.2021. It is also not in dispute that in various High Courts
of the country, such issue about grant of one increment accruing on
1st July to its employees and who had retired on 30 th June, was raised
and examined by different High Courts. Ultimately, the Supreme
Court in the judgment in the case of Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL
and Others v. C.P. Mundinamani and Others, dated 11.04.2023,
disposed of the Special Leave Petition on identical issue.
7. It appears that thereafter, a review application was filed
before the Supreme Court on the very said judgment being Misc. Civil
Application (Diary) No.2400 of 2024 in Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No.4722 of 2021. By the order dated 06.09.2024, the Supreme Court
again clarified with regard to entitlement of one increment to such
employees who are similarly situated to the opponent.
8. The Supreme Court has held thus:-
"The issue raised in the present applications
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1764/2024 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
requires consideration, insofar as the date of
applicability of the judgment dated 11.04.2023 in
Civil Appeal No. 2471/2023, titled "Director (Admn.
and HR) KPTCL and Others v. C.P. Mundinamani and
Others", to third parties is concerned.
We are informed that a large number of fresh writ
petitions have been filed.
To prevent any further litigation and confusion, by
of an interim order we direct that:
(a) The judgment dated 11.04.2023 will be given
effect to in case of third parties from the date of
the judgment, that is, the pension by taking into
account one increment will be payable on and after
01.05.2023. Enhanced pension for the period prior
to 31.04.2023 will not be paid.
(b) For persons who have filed writ petitions
and succeeded, the directions given in the said
judgment will operate as res judicata, and
accordingly, an enhanced pension by taking one
increment would have to be paid.
(c) The direction in (b) will not apply, where
the judgment has not attained finality, and cases
where an appeal has been preferred, or if filed, is
entertained by the appellate court.
(d) In case any retired employee has filed any
application for intervention/impleadment in Civil
Appeal No. 3933/2023 or any other writ petition and
a beneficial order has been passed, the enhanced
pension by including one increment will be payable
from the month in which the application for
intervention/impleadment was filed.
This interim order will continue till further
orders of this Court. However, no person who has
already received an enhanced pension including
arrears, will be affected by the directions in (a),
(c) and (d)."
9. In the meantime, the State Government, on dismissal of the
Special Leave Petition, had also framed policy regulating grant of
one increment in line of the order passed by the Supreme Court.
However, when the recent order dated 06.09.2024 was passed by the
Supreme Court clarifying its earlier order, the State Government has
withdrawn the policy.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1764/2024 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
10. It is also not in dispute that the learned Single Judge as well
as the Division Bench have placed reliance on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra) for taking
similar view.
11. In light of subsequent development, the State Government
has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal on the order passed by
the learned Single Judge. We have noticed that there are numerous
Letters Patent Appeals filed either by the State Government or by
various bodies of the State Government on the basis of the order
passed by the Supreme Court. In fact, in some matters, the learned
advocates appearing for the employees have consented for passing
orders in Letters Patent Appeals in line of the order dated
06.09.2024 passed by the Supreme Court in the review application in
case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra).
12. The aforesaid fact is not denied by the employees that in
identical facts and on the similar judgments, this Court has
entertained the Letters Patent Appeals. For brevity, we are not
inclined to refer to the numbers of such Appeals.
13. Thus, in order to see that uniformity is maintained in all such
cases and all the employees are treated at par with the directions
issued by the Supreme Court, we are inclined to dispose of the
Letters Patent Appeal in conformity with the order dated 06.09.2024
passed by the Supreme Court in Misc. Civil Application (Diary)
No.2400 of 2024 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4722 of 2021.
14. Thus, the present appeal is disposed of in terms of the order
passed by the Supreme Court. The date of conferring of the benefit
of one increment shall be extended to the employees in light of the
aforesaid order.
15. The present appeal is disposed of in the above terms. As a
sequel, the connected Civil Application also stands disposed of.
FURTHER ORDER
16. It is also noticed by us that the various writ petitions are filed
by the Mandals / Union/Associations who are having Government
employees/daily wagers/contractual employees as their members,
and are working / retired or terminated. These members belong to
various departments of the State Gujarat located at various places. It
is also noticed that some of the members are also serving in local
bodies. A common writ petition like the captioned one is filed by
such Mandal/Association/Unions claiming similar reliefs.
17. It is also noticed by us in numerous maters filed before this
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1764/2024 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
Court, the State Government or the Local Bodies fail to point out the
actual service details of each member/employee such as their
original appointment, status of such employees, place of working and
post etc., before this Court, and only after the orders are passed, the
details are pointed out. It is also noticed by us that even those
members/employees who are not entitled to any relief succeed in
getting the same because of common order/s passed in such matters.
This has led to anomalous, inconsistent and discriminatory
consequences, and generates multiplicity of litigation, at the cost of
precious time of this Court including the Registry.
18. Thus, in our considered opinion, the State Government has to
come out with a policy decision regulating the approach of the
Officers manning such departments, which face with the litigation,
in which huge number of employees are involved. We hope that
appropriate decision will be taken by the State Government in this
regard, so that further time of this Court is not wasted.
19. The learned advocates appearing for the
Unions/Mandals/Association shall also supply all the details of its
members, while filing the writ petitions claiming similar benefits for
its members which can facilitate the State Government to cross-
check the details of each of the employees, and in case it is
established that despite the details having being supplied in the writ
petitions, the concerned Officers have failed to point out any
discrepancies, then such remissness will invite adverse inference.
20. Registry is directed to supply to copy of the present order to
the office of the Government Pleader for onward compliance."
3. Accordingly, the connected civil application is also stands
disposal of.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI,J)
MAHESH/22
