[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Kamuben Kalubhai Chauhan(Deceased) vs State Of Gujarat on 2 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19690/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19690 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
KAMUBEN KALUBHAI CHAUHAN(DECEASED) & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NILESH M SHAH(780) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5
MS FORUM SHAH, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 02/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Advocate Mr. Devang
Bhatt for learned Advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw for respondent
Nos.2, 3 & 4, as also learned AGP Ms. Forum J. Shah for
respondent No.1, waive service of notice of Rule for respective
respondents.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19690/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
2. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective
parties, the present matter is taken up for hearing.
3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Nilesh Shah for the petitioners,
learned Advocate Mr. Devang Bhatt for learned Advocate Mr.
H. S. Munshaw for respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 and learned AGP
Ms. Forum Shah for respondent No.1, at length.
4. The present writ petition is filed under Articles 14, 16 and 226
of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:
"(A) to issue writ of certiorari and/or any other writ or writs or orders or
directions.
(B) to quash and set aside order dt.21-04-15, Ann-I passed by
Respondent No.4 to the extent of not granting benefit of Resolution dt.
17-10-88, Ann-H from 01-01-90 and also to the extent of stating
appointment date of the Petitioner as 16-03-10.
(C) to direct the Respondents to give the benefit of Resolution dt.17-10-
88, Ann-H to the Petitioner with effect from 01-01-90 notionally up to 30-
05-06 and further be pleased to direct the Respondents to give
difference of salary from 31-05-06 onwards till its actual implementation
and also to direct the Respondents to correct appointment date of the
Petitioner as 1985 in the service book of the Petitioner and all other
records of the Respondents.
(D) during the pendency of this petition by way of interim relief to direct
the Respondents not to change the service condition of the Petitioner
and also direct the Respondents to give pay slip every month to the
Petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19690/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
(E) to grant any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit in the
interest of justice.
(F) to allow this petition with costs."
5. At the outset, learned Advocate Mr. Shah appearing for the
petitioners would draw the attention of this Court in regards to
order dated 17.02.2022 passed by this Court in this petition,
whereby, it has been observed that appropriate decision be
taken by respondent authority to recall its order dated
21.04.2015 impugned in this petition and in pursuance to the
same, though fresh order dated 07.03.2022 came to be passed,
whereby, respondent authority have fixed the pay of the
petitioners vide its letter dated 27.03.2023, but not given actual
effect of passing the monetary benefits to the petitioners, which
requires to be passed on.
5.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah would state that issue germane in
the matter is squarely covered by the decision dated 31.01.2022
of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Special Civil
Application No.131 of 2019 (in the case of Thakarshibhai
amarshibhai Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.) with
Special Civil Application No.1403 of 2019, confirmed by the
Division Bench vide its judgment and order dated 02.05.2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19690/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.226 of 2022 and others
allied matters, whereby, similarly situated persons like the
petitioner, given benefits, as prayed in this present petition.
6. Since the aforesaid facts and the judgments / orders passed by
the Coordinate Bench, confirmed by the Division Bench, are
not disputed by the learned Advocates appearing for the
respondents, it needs not to discuss in detail the facts, when this
Court also inclines to pass similar such judgment / order in this
matter, but only few facts require to be observed, which are as
follows;
6.1. The original petitioner - deceased Kamuben Kalubhai
Chauhan (hereinafter referred to as 'original petitioner') was
appointed as daily wager with respondent No.4 in the year
1985, whose services were terminated abruptly by respondent
No.4 along with others on 27.11.1990. So, original petitioner
along with others raised Industrial Dispute being Reference
Case (LCS) No.73 of 1994, which came to be decided by the
Labour Court, Surendranagar in favour of original petitioner,
vide its judgment and award dated 30.05.2006, whereby
original petitioner and other similarly situated have been
ordered to reinstate them in their respective services.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19690/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
6.2. The aforesaid judgment and award passed by the Labour
Court came to be challenged by the respondents concerned
before this Court by way of Special Civil Application
Nos.16424 of 2007 and 30390 of 2007 to 30396 of 2007. It
appears from the record that such judgment / award is
confirmed up to Division Bench of this Court, having
dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 2012 of 2009 to 2019
of 2009, vide its judgment and order dated 22.12.2009.
6.3. The original petitioner having not granted the benefits as per
the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the Labour Court,
inasmuch as, not granted wages from the date of award till his
actual reinstatement, then preferred a writ petition being
Special Civil Application No.920 of 2011, which also came to
be allowed in favour of the original petitioner and ors., by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order
dated 23.03.2011, in the said petition.
6.4. It further appears that previous service rendered by the original
petitioner was not taken into account when reinstated in the
service, by way of impugned communication dated 21.04.2015,
original petitioner along with others treated to have been in
service only from 16.03.2010 i.e. when actually reinstated. This
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19690/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
impugned decision/action of respondents challenged by the
respective parties along with the original petitioner herein, as
according to them, the same not passed in consonance with
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.
6.5. As observed hereinabove, in case of other employees who also
reinstated in the service as per the aforesaid judgment and
award passed by the Labour Court, their respective writ
petitions being Special Civil Application No.131 of 2019 and
Special Civil Application No.1403 of 2019, came to be allowed
by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
31.01.2022 and so also, confirmed by the Division Bench while
dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal No.226 of 2022 & Letters
Patent Appeal No.546 of 2022 and others allied matters
respectively, vide its judgment and order dated 02.05.2025.
6.6. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgments / orders passed by the
Co-ordinate Bench, confirmed by the Division Bench, all the
benefits emanating from G.R. dated 17.10.1988 given to other
similarly situated persons, requires to be given to original
petitioner as well.
7. At this stage, learned Advocate Mr. Shah pointed out that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19690/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
other similar such orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench /
Division Bench of this Court and also confirmed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, which are as follows;
(i) Special Civil Application No.18154 of 2015, decision
dated 22/12/2016, confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal
No.485 of 2017 dated 20/07/2021, also confirmed in SLP (C)
No.2116 of 2022, dismissing the SLP vide order dated
22.01.2024;
(ii) Special Civil Application Nos.20894 of 2017 & 21570
of 2017, decided on 06.03.2020, confirmed in Letters Patent
Appeal No.663 of 2020 in Special Civil Application No.20894
of 2017 vide order dated 06.02.2024 and confirmed on
13.02.2024 in Letters Patent Appeal No.722 of 2020 in
Special Civil Application No.21570 of 2017;
(iii) Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in
(2002) 9 SCC 492;
(iv) Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao Vs. Kosan Industries
(P) Ltd., rendered in Civil Appeal Nos.201-202 of 2020
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.30469-30470 of 2015), reported
in AIR 2020 SC 1776.
8. By placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgments / orders
passed by this Court, confirmed up to the Hon'ble Apex Court
and other two decisions in the cases of Gurpreet Singh (supra)
and Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao (supra), Mr. Shah would
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19690/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
respectfully submit that as per the settled legal position of law,
when Labour Court granted relief of reinstating the applicant /
original petitioner, even if not specifically observed about the
continuity of her service, it is deemed to have been granted,
thus, it cannot be ignored by employer when reinstated original
petitioner.
8.1. It is respectfully submitted that even though Labour Court has
not in clear terms observed in its judgment / award that
reinstatement of original petitioner with continuity of service,
as per the aforesaid pronouncement of law by highest Court of
India, it requires to be considered by the respondents,
inasmuch as, when there is an award of reinstatement by the
Labour Court, such award has to be construed to be an award
granting continuity of service unless otherwise expressly denied.
9. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. Devang Bhatt for learned
Advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw under the instructions would
state that due to inadvertence, benefit flowing from letter dated
27.03.2023 issued by respondent authority not passed on to the
petitioners.
9.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt for learned Advocate Mr.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19690/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
H.S.Munshaw for respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 so also learned
Asst. Government Pleader Ms. Forum J. Shah for respondent
Nos.1, though placed reliance upon the judgment and order
passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 12.07.2016
passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.492 of 2016 in R/ Special
Civil Application No.20577 of 2015, are unable to countenance
the submissions made by the learned Advocate Mr. Shah for
the original petitioner.
10. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties
and after going through all the aforementioned cited judgments
/ orders passed by this Court and so also, by Hon'ble Apex
Court, it is clear like a day that whenever there is an award
passed by the Labour Court, whereby services of labourer
concerned is ordered to be reinstated without expressing
anything about his/her continuity of service, unless it is
expressly denied by Labour Court, continuity of service is
deemed to have been granted in such award. Thus, in view of
aforesaid pronouncement of law, respondents require to
consider continuity of service of original petitioner herein
though not expressed observed by Labour Court in its
aforesaid award, thereby requires to grant benefits to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19690/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
original petitioner / applicant concerned.
11. It is not in dispute that case of the original petitioner is so
similar and governed by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in the case of Thakarshibhai Amarshibhai
Chauhan (supra), which came to be confirmed by the Division
Bench while dismissing the R/Letters Patent Appeal No.226 of
2022 and allied matters, on 02.05.2025, thus, there is no reason
to take departure from such orders / judgments which
otherwise binding to this Court.
12. In view of the foregoing observations and reasons, the present
writ petition requires to be allowed, which is hereby allowed.
12.1. The respondents here are directed to release the benefits as
decided in its letter dated 27.03.2023 issued by the office of
Deputy Executive Engineer, Limdi, Dist. Surendranagar and
arrears of the amount from 01.06.2006 to 23.12.2022 be
calculated and paid to the to legal heirs of original petitioner
on or before 31st January, 2026, failing which, heirs of
petitioner herein are entitled to receive such arrears amount
with 9% interest from 01st February, 2026 till its realization. It
is also open for petitioner to initiate contempt proceeding
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19690/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
against erring officials of respondents for not complying with
aforesaid direction in time.
12.2. Consequently, the impugned communication dated 21.04.2015
passed by respondent No.4 to the extent of not granting
benefits to petitioner of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 from 1.1.1990
and to the extent of stating her appointment w.e.f. from dated
16.03.2010 is hereby quashed and set aside by holding that the
same is arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India and so also passed contrary to law laid down by this
Court / Hon'ble Apex Court as aforesaid.
12.3. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to give all the
consequential benefits of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 to the original
petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1990 notionally up to 30.05.2006 and
further directed to give difference of salary from 01.06.2006 to
23.12.2022.
12.4. It is reported to this Court that original petitioner having
expired on 23.12.2022, respondents are directed to grant
retirement benefits like gratuity and leave encashment to the
petitioners on the basis of considering 32 years of continuous
service of the original petitioner including family pension
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19690/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
starting from 24.12.2022.
13. In view of the foregoing conclusion, the present Writ Petition is
partly allowed, to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute. At
present no costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
NILESH
