Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Shantaben Kantilal Parmar on 3 January, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/18/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 18 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11791 of 2023
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 18 of 2025
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Versus
SHANTABEN KANTILAL PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SAHIL B.TRIVEDI AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR MURALI N DEVNANI(1863) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 03/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, 1865, is directed against the order dated 26.09.2023
passed in Special Civil Application No.11791 of 2023. The said
writ petition was decided along with the group of writ
petitions. The present respondents are the original petitioners
of Special Civil Application No.11791 of 2023.
2. At the outset, learned A.G.P. Mr. Sahil B.Trivedi has
submitted that the respondent Nos.1 to 7, who are the original
writ petitioners in fact, are Daily Wagers and are not entitled
to benefit of one increment, as they have been paid pension in
view of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/18/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2025
undefined
they are not paid regular increments. Hence, it is urged that
the judgments and orders including the judgments of the
Supreme Court will not apply in their cases.
3. It is not in dispute that the respondent Nos.1 to 7 are
daily wagers and they are paid pension in view of the
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, and they are also
not entitled to regular increments, which are being extended
to regular government employees.
4. Hence, the judgment and order dated 26.09.2023 passed
by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application
No.11791 of 2023 is quashed and set aside, so far as the
respondent Nos.1 to 7 are concerned. However, it is clarified
that it will be open for them to approach the appellants
authorities to satisfy, as to whether they are entitled to
additional one increment on their retirement or not?
5. So far as the respondent Nos.8 and 9 are concerned,
following orders are passed.
6. It is an established fact that there are various Writ
Petitions filed by numerous employees after the judgment was
rendered by the 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 1 st July to its
employees and who had retired on 30 th June, was raised and
examined by different High Courts. Ultimately, the Supreme
Court in the judgment in the case of Director (Admn. and HR)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/18/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2025
undefined
KPTCL and Others v. C.P. Mundinamani and Others , dated
11.04.2023, disposed of the Special Leave Petition on
identical issue.
7. 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 opponents.
8. 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.
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, and accordingly, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/18/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2025
undefined
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)."
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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).
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/18/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2025
undefined
12. 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.
13. Thus, in order to see that uniformity is maintained in all
such cases and all the 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.
14. Thus, the present appeal is disposed of in terms of
the order passed by the Supreme Court, so far as the
respondent Nos.8 and 9 are concerned. The date of
conferring of the benefit of one increment shall be
extended to the employees in light of the aforesaid
order.
15. The present appeal is disposed of in the above
terms. As a sequel, the connected Civil Application also
stands disposed of.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj / 4
