Gujarat High Court
Tarmohmad Alarakha Baloch vs H C Chauhan , Superintending Engineer on 10 February, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/2026/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT) NO. 2026 of
2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 648 of 2023
=============================================
TARMOHMAD ALARAKHA BALOCH
Versus
H C CHAUHAN , SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR MUKESH H RATHOD(2432) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS VRUNDA SHAH, AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2,3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 10/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present contempt application has been filed seeking
initiation of contempt proceedings under the provisions of
Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willing
and deliberate disobedience of the directions issued by the
Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.08.2023
passed in the captioned Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Mukesh H. Rathod, appearing for
the applicant has submitted that after the directions were
issued by this Division Bench for extending the benefit arising
from the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 from the date of the
reinstatement i.e. from 04.02.2013, the respondent authorities
have passed the order dated 25.04.2023 counting his five
years services of each year in which the applicant-original
workman has completed 240 days. It is submitted that there is
an error in passing the order dated 25.04.2023 since from the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/2026/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2025
undefined
year 2013, if the five years are added, the same would come
to 2018 and not 2021. Thus, it is urged that the respondents
are required to consider the intervening period for extending
the benefits arising from the Resolution dated 17.10.1988.
3. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader has
submitted that as per the policy of the State Government
introduced by the Resolution dated 17.10.1988, only those
years, in which the daily wager has completed 240 days, are
required to be considered and accordingly, after considering
the same, the applicant has been extended benefit of the
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and his pay has
been fixed.
4. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned
advocates appearing for the respective parties.
5. The Coordinate Bench vide order dated 21.08.2023
passed in the captioned Letters Patent Appeal has issued the
following directions, which read as under :-
"6.2 Having considered the controversy and assessing
the total facts and circumstances, this court is of
the view that the benefits should be extended to the
workman available under Resolution dated 17.10.1988
from the date of his reinstatement that is from
4.2.2013.
6.3 With the above clarification and directions to
the respondents to grant the benefits of the
Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the workman as per
the judgment and order of learned single Judge from
the aforesaid date of reinstatement that is
4.2.2013, the present Letters Patent Appeal is
dismissed."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/2026/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2025
undefined
6. After the aforesaid directions were issued, the
respondent authorities have passed the order dated
25.04.2023 and further order on 16.02.2024 fixing pay-scale of
the applicant, who was daily wager.
7. The respondents have as per their reading of the
Resolution dated 17.10.1988 have conferred the benefit from
31.05.2021, after counting his appointment date as
17.06.2013, the respondents have excluded those years in
which the applicant workman has not completed 240 days of
working.
8. Thus, while examining the present contempt application,
we cannot go with the calculation of number days, in which,
the applicant-workman has been engaged by the respondents.
It cannot be said that there is willful and deliberate
disobedience of the directions issued by the Division Bench. In
case, the applicant is aggrieved by the order and the action of
the respondents in fixing his pay-scale, it is always open for
him to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate
forum.
9. With these observations, the present application stands
rejected.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI,J)
MAHESH/79
