[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Maniben Kanabhai Dhrangiya vs State Of Gujarat on 11 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11015/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11015 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
=============================================
MANIBEN KANABHAI DHRANGIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR SAMIR B GOHIL(5718) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SHIVAM PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 11/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Samir B. Gohil, learned advocate for the
petitioner and Mr. Shivam Parikh, learned AGP for the
respondent State.
2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :
" A) Directing the respondents to grant benefits of fixed pay w.e.f
26.3.1989 and benefit of regular pay scale w.e.f 26.3.1994 as per
GR dt. 17.10.1988 and further directing them to revise his pay scale
accordingly and pay consequential benefits.
B) Directing the respondents to pay pension and gratuity to the
petitioner as per GR dt. 17.10.1988 with 8% interest.
C) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the
respondents may be directed to fix and pay provisional pension to
the petitioner on the basis of her last drawn pay."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11015/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/12/2025
undefined
SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE :
3. The short controversy germane in this matter is that
despite the fact that there is an order of reinstatement issued
by the Labour Court on 19.04.1995, whereby the petitioner
got reinstated on her original post from where she was
terminated from her service in the year 1984, the actual
benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 was not
given by the respondents, inasmuch as, continuity of service
to count notionally was not at all taken into account.
3.1 It appears that after the reinstatement of the petitioner,
the respondent authority considered the actual service
rendered by the petitioner from the year 1995, whereby on
completion of five years, she was put in fixed pay. Thereafter,
on completion of further five years, she was given actual pay
scale in the year 2005 and as the petitioner retired from
service on 30.11.2014, having not completed 10 years of
qualifying service to receive pension, such benefit was denied
to her. Hence, the present petition.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER :
4. Mr. Samir Gohil, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner would submit that as per the settled position of law,
once the petitioner got reinstated as per the award passed by
the Labour Court, continuity of service, though not expressly
observed in the award, requires to be considered by the
respondent whereby, the petitioner is deemed to have been in
service from 1984 till the date of her retirement i.e. on
30.11.2014.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11015/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/12/2025
undefined
4.1 It is further submitted that after completion of five years
from 1984, i.e. 26.3.1989, the petitioner is entitled to receive
fixed pay having completed five years of service and w.e.f.
26.03.1994, on completion of further five years of service, she
is entitled to receive regular pay scale. It is further submitted
that as per Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, which
was clarified by subsequent circular dated 30.05.1989, the
initial date of service of the petitioner requires to be
considered for qualifying service to receive pension. Thereby,
the petitioner requires to be granted pensionary benefit as the
initial year of service of the petitioner was 1984.
4.2 To buttress his arguments, he would rely upon the
following judgments :
(i) Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others -
(2002) 9 SCC 492.
(ii) Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao vs. Kosan
Industries (P) Ltd. - AIR 2020 SC 1776.
(iii) District Panchayat vs. Danabhai Kalabhai
rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 485 of 2017
dated 20.07.2021.
(iv) District Panchayat vs. Danabhai Kalabhai
rendered in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2116 of
2022.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
5. Per contra, Mr.Shivam Parikh, learned AGP would
submit that as the petitioner was actually reinstated in service
in the year 1995 and having completed 10 years of service in
2005, thereby she was not entitled to receive any pensionary
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11015/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/12/2025
undefined
benefit. It is submitted that the stand of the respondent has
been clarified in the reply filed and according to the
submission of the learned AGP, the petitioner would not
receive any pensionary benefit, having not completed
qualifying years of service to receive pension.
ANALYSIS:
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties, the following facts are not in dispute.
6.1 The petitioner was appointed as a daily wager in the year
1984 and in the same year, she was dismissed from service.
The petitioner appears to have approached the Labour Court
by raising an industrial dispute by way of reference, which
came to be allowed in her favour on 19.04.1995, whereby the
petitioner was reinstated in service without any back wages.
There was no express observation made by the Labour Court
as regards continuity of service.
6.2 Thereafter, the petitioner was actually reinstated in
service in the year 1995 and she came to be retired from her
service in the year 2014. It is in this background of facts that
vide order dated 05.01.2006, the respondent put the
petitioner in regular pay scale w.e.f. 01.12.2005 considering
her service with effect from the year 1995, instead of the year
1984. So, respondents have not granted any pensionary
benefits to the petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11015/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/12/2025
undefined
7. The issue germane in this matter would be squarely
covered by decisions which are cited by learned advocate
Mr.Gohil and as such, there is no cavil that once the order of
reinstatement has been granted by the Labour Court,
continuity of service is deemed to have been granted, even
though it is not expressly observed in the award of the Labour
Court. I would not like to burden myself by quoting ratio of
the aforesaid decisions as same is not disputed by the
respondents.
8. In light of the above, the decision of the respondent
authority whereby placing the petitioner in regular pay scale
w.e.f. 01.12.2005 requires to be interfered with by this Court,
inasmuch as, it runs contrary to Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988 as well as Circular dated 30.05.1989 issued by
respondent - State.
CONCLUSION :
9. Having so observed that the decision of the respondent
authority is not in consonance with the aforesaid
resolution/circular, considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and foregoing reasons, the prayers made in
this petition require to be accepted. Thereby, the respondents
are directed to reconsider the date of entitlement of the
petitioner to receive fixed pay as well as pay scale w.e.f.
26.03.1989 and 26.03.1994, respectively, instead of what has
been stated in its order dated 05.01.2006.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11015/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/12/2025
undefined
9.1 Accordingly, entire period of service of the petitioner
from the year 1984 till the date of actual retirement, i.e.
30.11.2014, requires to be considered for all retirement
benefits like pension, gratuity and leave encashment.
9.2 Consequently, the respondent authorities are hereby
directed to grant all such benefits to the petitioner and any
difference of such amount is also to be paid, if so far not paid,
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order, failing which, the respondents shall have to
pay interest at the rate of 9% on the said amount from the
date of such default.
9.3 It goes without saying that once all such arrears amount
are paid to the petitioner within the stipulated time, regular
pension be paid to the petitioner.
10. Thus, in view of aforesaid conclusion, the petition is
allowed. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
