Gujarat High Court
Ramanbhai Chunabhai Waghela vs The State Of Gujarat on 25 August, 2025
Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10771/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10771 of 2024
==========================================================
RAMANBHAI CHUNABHAI WAGHELA
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DHRUVI K DESAI(8459) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS TANUSHREE SHRIMAL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 25/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Ms. Dhruvi K. Desai, the learned advocate appearing
for the petitioner and Ms. Tanushree Shrimal, the learned AGP
appearing for the respondents.
2. By way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India the petitioner herein has challenged the
impugned order dated 4.3.2024 passed by the respondent No.4
herein Annexure-A to the petition, wherein the respondent No.4
herein denied extending benefit of Government Circular dated
16.7.2019 to the petitioner herein having arrived at finding of fact
that the petitioner herein worked for four hours till the order was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10771/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
passed on 4.3.2024, however the petitioner did not figure amongst
those who had approached the High Court by preferring the
Special Civil Application No.7462 of 2012 and allied matters on
21.12.2018 and Letters Patent Appeal No.1155 of 2019 dated
9.5.2019 wherein the benefit of Government Circular issued by the
Finance Department dated 16.7.2019 for grant of minimum of pay-
scale with effect from 1.1.2019 was granted upon certain
conditions to those petitioners only.
3. Ms. Dhruvi K. Desai, the learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner relied on the Government Circular dated 16.7.2019 duly
produced at Annexure-B (page-11) and submitted that the
competent authority has committed an error in declining the benefit
of Government Circular dated 16.7.2019 in light of the fact that the
petitioner herein worked for four hours which forms part of the
impugned order dated 4.3.2024 that the petitioner was not a part of
the proceedings before the High Court and in allied matters could
not have been reason to deny such benefit of Government
Circular dated 16.7.2019 to the petition.
3.1 It is submitted that aforesaid issue has attained finality by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10771/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench in the Special Civil
Application No.6852 of 2020 and allied matter dated 19.7.2022
reported in 2022 (0) AIJEL-HC-244233 in the case of
Hasmukhbhai Chimanlal Tapodhan vs. State of Gujarat, the
directions issued in the said group of petitions were modified in the
Letters Patent Appeal No.724 of 2023 and allied matters dated
11.8.2023 reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL-HC-247611 in the case of
State of Gujarat vs. Haresh Arjanbhai Parmar challenging the said
judgment and order whereby the Hon'ble Division Bench modified
the order passed by the Coordinate Bench dated 19.7.2022
observing that the issue with regard applicability of Government
Circular dated 16.7.2019 with regard to part-time employee
working for less than four hours was kept open for examination.
4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties, in the case of hand, the petitioner herein is
denied the benefit of Government Circular dated 16.7.2019 for
grant of minimum pay-scale wherein out of eight categories, one of
the category is with regard to part-timer who is working for four
hours or more. The petitioner is denied the benefit on the ground
that the petitioner was not part of the Special Civil Application
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10771/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
No.6852 of 2020 and allied matters and Letters Patent Appeal
No.724 of 2023 and allied matters, as referred hereinabove.
5. In the opinion of this Court, the case of the petitioner ought
not to have been brushed aside on such ground without
considering the petitoiner's case on its own merit whether the
petitioner herein put in four hours of work or more. This is a fit case
to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. In view thereof, the impugned order dated
4.3.2024 passed by the respondent No.4 is quashed and set aside
with direction to verify whether the petitioner worked for four hours
or more per day before the petitioner retired. This Court deems it fit
to give the following directions :-
(a) In case the petitioner herein is found to have worked for
four hours, then the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to verify the said fact
within a period two weeks from the receipt of this order and
thereafter shall forward the proposal to respondent No.1, who shall
decide the same within a period of four weeks and ensure that
appropriate payment of differential amount is disbursed within a
period of two weeks thereafter.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10771/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
6. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is allowed.
Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to revive the present
petition in case of difficulty.
7. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to revive the
present petition upon filing of the note with the Registry.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
K.K. SAIYED
