Gujarat High Court
Saybabhai Kalidas Datania vs State Of Gujarat on 7 August, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10829/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10829 of 2025
==========================================================
SAYBABHAI KALIDAS DATANIA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HB SINGH(2073) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MITUL GAUTAM ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 07/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. H.B. Singh on behalf of the petitioner
and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mitul Gautam on behalf of
the respondent - State.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Singh would submit that the case of the
present petitioner being squarely covered by decision of Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.380/2016 and
allied matters dated 29.06.2018, the grievance raised by the present
petitioner at this stage could be assuaged if representation which would be
preferred by the petitioner relying upon the said judgment may be directed
to be decided by the respondents within a specific period of time.
3. Considering the submission made by learned advocate Mr. Singh,
since the same appears to be reasonable, the following directions are
passed:-
(a) The petitioner, in addition to the representation already
preferred, shall prefer fresh representation pointing out how
their case is similar to the case of the workmen in Letters
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10829/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
Patent Appeal No.380/2016 and allied matters and whereas,
such representation shall be preferred by the petitioner within
a period of two weeks from today.
(b) Upon such representation being received by the respondents,
the same shall be considered and decided by them within a
period of eight weeks thereafter, more particularly taking into
account the communication of the respondent herein, whereby
the proposal in case of the present petitioner is stated to be
pending.
(c) It is directed that if the petitioner is similarly situated to the
employees in Letters Patent Appeal No.380/2016, then the
benefits as made available to the said employees may be passed
on to the present petitioner as expeditiously, but not later than
eight weeks from the date of decision as per 3(ii), as above.
(d) In case the present petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of
the respondents, then it would be open for the petitioner to
question the same before appropriate forum in accordance
with law.
4. With the above observations and directions, the present petition
stands disposed of. Needless to clarify that this Court has not entered into
the merits of the matter. Direct service is permitted.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
Y.N. VYAS
