Gujarat High Court
Child Development Plan Officer vs Ajitsinh Ramsinh Dodiya on 10 February, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/269/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 269 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16038 of 2023
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 269 of 2025
==========================================================
CHILD DEVELOPMENT PLAN OFFICER
Versus
AJITSINH RAMSINH DODIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
AISHVARYA(8018) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5,6
MS TEJAL K SHAH(2719) for the Respondent(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)
At the outset, learned advocate Ms.Aishvarya
has submitted that against the very same order,
Letters Patent Appeal No.155 of 2025 filed by the
Executive Engineer against its employees has been
disposed of by the order dated 20.01.2025. She
has submitted that in the present proceedings are
confined only to the respondent No.1, who is the
employee of the appellant however, the benefits
have already been paid.
1. It is an established fact that there are
various Writ Petitions filed by numerous
employees after the judgment was rendered by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/269/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2025
undefined
learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application
No.10308 of 2021 dated 11.08.2021. It is also not
in dispute that in various High Courts of the
country, such issue about grant of one increment
accruing on 1st July to its employees and who had
retired on 30th June, was raised and examined by
different High Courts. Ultimately, the Supreme
Court in the judgment in the case of Director
(Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Others v. C.P.
Mundinamani and Others, dated 11.04.2023,
disposed of the Special Leave Petition on
identical issue.
2. It appears that thereafter, a review
application was filed before the Supreme Court on
the very said judgment being Misc. Civil
Application (Diary) No.2400 of 2024 in Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No.4722 of 2021. By the
order dated 06.09.2024, the Supreme Court again
clarified with regard to entitlement of one
increment to such employees who are similarly
situated to the opponent.
3. The Supreme Court has held thus:-
"The issue raised in the present applications
requires consideration, insofar as the date of
applicability of the judgment dated 11.04.2023 in
Civil Appeal No. 2471/2023, titled "Director (Admn.
and HR) KPTCL and Others v. C.P. Mundinamani and
Others", to third parties is concerned.
We are informed that a large number of fresh writ
petitions have been filed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/269/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2025
undefined
To prevent any further litigation and confusion, by
of an interim order we direct that:
(a) The judgment dated 11.04.2023 will be given
effect to in case of third parties from the date of
the judgment, that is, the pension by taking into
account one increment will be payable on and after
01.05.2023. Enhanced pension for the period prior to
31.04.2023 will not be paid.
(b) For persons who have filed writ petitions and
succeeded, the directions given in the said judgment
will operate as res judicata, andaccordingly, an
enhanced pension by taking one increment would have
to be paid.
(c) The direction in (b) will not apply, where the
judgment has not attained finality, and cases where
an appeal has been preferred, or if filed, is
entertained by the appellate court.
(d) In case any retired employee has filed any
application for intervention/impleadment in Civil
Appeal No. 3933/2023 or any other writ petition and a
beneficial order has been passed, the enhanced
pension by including one increment will be payable
from the month in which the application for
intervention/impleadment was filed.
This interim order will continue till further orders
of this Court. However, no person who has already
received an enhanced pension including arrears, will
be affected by the directions in (a), (c) and (d)."
4. In the meantime, the State Government, on
dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, had also
framed policy regulating grant of one increment
in line of the order passed by the Supreme Court.
However, when the recent order dated 06.09.2024
was passed by the Supreme Court clarifying its
earlier order, the State Government has withdrawn
the policy.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/269/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2025
undefined
5. It is also not in dispute that the learned
Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have
placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra) for
taking similar view.
6. In light of subsequent development, the State
Government has filed the present Letters Patent
Appeal on the order passed by the learned Single
Judge. We have noticed that there are numerous
Letters Patent Appeals filed either by the State
Government or by various bodies of the State
Government on the basis of the order passed by
the Supreme Court. In fact, in some matters, the
learned advocates appearing for the employees
have consented for passing orders in Letters
Patent Appeals in line of the order dated
06.09.2024 passed by the Supreme Court in the
review application in case of C.P. Mundinamani
(supra).
7. The aforesaid fact is not denied by the
employees that in identical facts and on the
similar judgments, this Court has entertained the
Letters Patent Appeals. For brevity, we are not
inclined to refer to the numbers of such Appeals.
8. Thus, in order to see that uniformity is
maintained in all such cases and all the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/269/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/02/2025
undefined
employees are treated at par with the directions
issued by the Supreme Court, we are inclined to
dispose of the Letters Patent Appeal in
conformity with the order dated 06.09.2024 passed
by the Supreme Court in Misc. Civil Application
(Diary) No.2400 of 2024 in Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No.4722 of 2021.
9. Thus, the present appeal is disposed of in
terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court
qua respondent No.1 only. As a sequel, the
connected Civil Application also stands disposed
of.
10. learned advocate Ms.Aishvarya and learned
advocate Ms.Shah have pointed out that pursuant
to the application filed by the applicant under
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 being Misc.
Civil Application No.203 of 2024, the original
employee i.e. respondent No.1 is already paid the
benefits of one increment as per the aforesaid
order passed by the Supreme Court.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI,J)
NVMEWADA/8
