Gujarat High Court
Dharmiben Mohan Solanki vs State Of Gujarat on 25 April, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 977 of 2025
In R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 475 of 2024
==========================================================
DHARMIBEN MOHAN SOLANKI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KRISHNAN M GHAVARIYA(8133) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS FORAM TRIVEDI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondents
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 25/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)
1. By this application, the applicant, has prayed for reviving the
contempt application being Miscellaneous Civil Application no.475 of
2024 in view of the development which has taken place during the
interregnum.
2. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Ms Foram Trivedi, learned
Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on
behalf of respondents.
3. Mr Krishnan M. Ghavariya, learned advocate for the applicant,
submitted that the captioned application has been necessitated
owing to the subsequent development which took place in the
interregnum. It is submitted that the Miscellaneous Civil Application
(for contempt) no.475 of 2024 was preferred before this Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
which, came to be withdrawn, at that stage, with a liberty to take
out appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
4. It is submitted that the compliance, was sought for of the
order dated 08.11.2023. Heavy reliance was placed on the judgment
of the Division Bench in the case of Gujarat Water Supply and
Sewerage Board & Others vs. Hansaben Pramodbhai Patel & Others
rendered in Letters Patent Appeal no.934 of 2023 and other allied
matters. The said judgment, was subject matter of challenge and
the Apex Court, has stayed the operation and hence, the contempt
application was sought to be withdrawn at that stage. Now, the
Apex Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary
no.3576 of 2024, vide order dated 20.01.2025 and hence, the
captioned application for revival of the contempt application.
5. Ms Foram Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader has
submitted that the State, is proposing to take out the proceedings of
appeal soon.
6. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
7. In the writ petition being Special Civil Application no.18505 of
2023, the applicant has challenged the decision of the respondent
whereby, the applicant was not extended the benefit of the
payment of lump sum compensation in lieu of the compassionate
appointment as per the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011
read with Government Resolution dated 07.04.2016. The learned
single Judge in paragraphs 4.1, 6 and 7 has observed thus:
"4.1 It would further appear that Division Bench of this Court
in a recent decision dated 24.08.2023, in Letters Patent
Appeal No. 934 of 2023 and the allied matters, where the
Division Bench was concerned with the issue of similar
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
nature has observed at paragraph. 5.1, which is reproduced
as under:
"The extension of said policy shall not be denied to
the petitioners and their claim shall not be rejected
on the ground that the deceased employee was a
daily wager."
6. Considering the above, more particularly, since the issue
is no more res integra, inasmuch as upon employees
originally appointed on daily wages upon being granted the
benefit of permanency as per Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988, then such employee would stand at par with
employees who were appointed on permanent basis from
the beginning after proper selection and thus the former
employee would be entitled to all such benefits as the later
employee would be entitled to, therefore, in the considered
opinion of this Court, the petitioner could not has been
denied the benefits of the policy of the State Government on
the aforementioned ground.
7. Having regard to the above discussions and observations,
the impugned order dated 08.06.2019 and 15.06.2019
passed by the respondents is hereby quashed and set aside.
Hence, it is directed that the respondents shall consider
extending the benefits of GR dated 05.07.2011 and GR
dated 07.04.2016, more particularly, for grant of lump sum
compensation on the basis of services rendered by the
deceased employee whom the present petitioner represent.
Such consideration shall be within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of this order and whereas the
consideration shall be on the basis of the above discussion.
Furthermore, the benefits upon positive consideration shall
be extended within a period of four weeks thereafter. In case
the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the
respondents then it would be open for the petitioner to
challenge the same before appropriate forum in accordance
with law."
8. Learned single Judge has quashed the decision taken by the
respondent therein. Moreover, the respondents were directed to
extend the benefit of Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011 read
with Government Resolution dated 07.04.2016 for grant of lump
sum compensation. Reference was made of the judgment of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
Division Bench of this Court dated 24.08.2023 passed in Letters
Patent Appeal no.934 of 2023 and other allied matters which, was
the subject matter of challenge before the Apex Court by way of
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary no.3576 of 2024. The Apex Court,
on 09.02.2024 has passed an order staying the operation of the
judgment dated 24.08.2023 passed in Letters Patent Appeal no.934
of 2023 and other allied matters. Recently, the Special Leave
Petition (Civil) Diary no.3576 of 2024 has been dismissed. The order
dated 20.01.2025 reads thus:
"1. Delay condoned.
2. Having heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor
General, appearing for the petitioner(s) and the learned
counsels appearing for the respondent(s), in the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere
with the judgment and order passed by the High Court. The
Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.
3. Questions of law raised by learned Solicitor General
are kept open for being considered in an appropriate case.
4. The order impugned shall not be treated as a
precedent.
5. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of."
9. The applicant has withdrawn the application in view of the
order dated 09.02.2024 passed by the Apex Court staying the
operation of the impugned order. As the Special Leave Petition
(Civil) Diary no.3576 of 2024 has been dismissed, the request is for
revival of the contempt proceedings.
10. In view of the above, this Court, deems it appropriate to allow
the miscellaneous civil application.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
11. Miscellaneous Civil Application succeeds and is accordingly
allowed in terms of paragraph 11(b). Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
RAVI P. PATEL
