Gujarat High Court
Saiyad Hasanmiya Alimiya vs Office Of Executive Engineer on 1 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1991/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1991 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
SAIYAD HASANMIYA ALIMIYA
Versus
OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS.DIXA PANDYA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 01/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Ms.Dixa Pandya
waives notice of Rule on behalf of State.
2. This petition is filed for the following reliefs:-
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased call for record and
proceedings of Gratuity Appeal Application No. 23 of 2019 and
Gratuity Application No. 40 of 2018 from the controlling officer,
and further be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order
dated 11.04.2019 and 17.09.2020 passed by controlling officer,
Surendranagar and Appellate authority, Rajkot, in Gratuity
Application No. 40 of 2018 and Gratuity Appeal Application No.
23 of 2019 (at ANNEXURE-A);
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1991/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
(B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present
application, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay further
operation, implementation and execution of impugned order dated
1.04.2019 and 07.09.2020 passed by controlling officer,
Surendranagar and Appellate authority, Rajkot, in Gratuity
Application No. 40 of 2018 and Gratuity Appeal Application No.23
of 2019 (at ANNEXURE-A);
(C) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be
thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case;"
3. The gist of the case is that the petitioner was appointed
as a peon in the office of the Deputy Executive Engineer,
Surendranagar, on 23.05.1980 and was released from
the job on 21.11.2007. The petitioner filed an application
under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, being Gratuity
Application No. 40 of 2018, which was rejected on the
ground that the petitioner's past service was forfeited by
the employer after initiating an inquiry, as the petitioner
remained absent unauthorizedly for a period of more
than two years. The order passed by the learned
Controlling Authority was challenged before the learned
Appellate Authority in Gratuity Appeal No. 32 of 2019,
which was also rejected vide order dated 17.09.2020,
and the same is the subject matter of the challenge
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1991/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Ms.Kirti.S.Pathak for the
petitioner and learned AGP Ms.Dixa Pandya for the
State.
5. Learned advocate Ms. Pathak submits that the petitioner
had served the State for more than 28 years. However,
the petitioner has not been paid the gratuity amount
due. Both the learned Authorities have erred in
dismissing the application filed by the petitioner.
Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside,
and the petition is required to be allowed.
6. On the other hand, learned AGP Ms. Pandya submits that
the past service of the petitioner was forfeited under
Rule 32 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
2002. This forfeiture was challenged before this Court
by filing Special Civil Application No. 17423 of 2011,
which came to be dismissed vide order dated
04.07.2012. The said order was confirmed by the
Division Bench in intra-court appeal being Letters Patent
Appeal No. 1512 of 2012. Learned AGP Ms. Pandya
further submits that since the forfeiture of past service
has attained finality, the learned Controlling Authority
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1991/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
as well as the learned Appellate Authority have not
committed any error in rejecting the application and the
appeal filed by the present petitioner. Hence, the
petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned advocates for the respective parties, and upon
perusal of the record, it emerges that the petitioner had
earlier filed Special Civil Application No. 17423 of 2011
challenging the orders dated 14.09.2011 and 21.11.2007
passed by the respondent-authorities, whereby the
petitioner was dismissed from service on the ground of
unauthorized absenteeism. The said petition was
dismissed vide order dated 04.07.2012, and the
dismissal was affirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 12
of 2012, wherein it was held that the petitioner had left
the country without prior permission of the department
and had remained abroad for more than one year. After
the conclusion of the departmental inquiry, and upon
affording due opportunity to the petitioner, a decision
was taken to dismiss him from service, which has since
attained finality. It is necessary to refer to Rule 32 of the
Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, which is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1991/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
reproduced hereinbelow:-
"32. Forfeiture of service on dismissal or removal : Dismissal of a
Government employee from a service or post entails forfeiture of
his past service. Removal of a Government employee from service
or post entails forfeiture of his past service unless specific entries
to the contrary are made in the service records."
7.1. On referring the above rule, it emerges that the
petition is filed without disclosing the said material fact
and without annexing the order passed by this Court in
Special Civil Application No. 17423 of 2011 as well as in
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1512 of 2012.
8. In the aforesaid background, this Court is of the
considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to the
claimed benefits, as the order of dismissal has attained
finality and the respondent-authority has forfeited his
past service. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be
deemed to have served continuously for a period of 28
years. In view of the above, the present petition fails and
deserves to be dismissed.
9. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed.
10. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
