Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat (Deleted) vs Maganbhai Chhanabhai Rathod on 6 January, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/94/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 94 of 2025
In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 36579 of 2024
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT (DELETED) & ORS.
Versus
MAGANBHAI CHHANABHAI RATHOD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR SHAH, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL
with MR SAHIL B. TRIVEDI, AGP for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR. KRUNAL K MODI(7321) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 06/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The matter has been called out twice, however, learned
advocate for the opponents has not remained present.
2. The present application is filed seeking condonation of delay
of 361 days in the captioned appeal.
3. At the outset, Ms.Manisha Lavkumar Shah, learned Additional
Advocate General has submitted that in various appeals after
condoning the delay of similar nature, the appeals are disposed of
in light of the order of the Supreme Court dated 11.04.2023 passed
in Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023. She has submitted that in most of
the matters, learned advocates appearing for the respective parties
had consented for condoning the delay and ultimately, had agreed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/94/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/01/2025
undefined
that the order may be passed in the present appeals in light of the
order passed by the Supreme Court. She has also submitted that in
fact, the entire issue was before the Supreme Court and thereafter,
in view of dismissal of some of the Letters Patent Appeals filed by
the State, the policy was also framed by the State Government
regulating the issue of grant of one increment. She has submitted
that ultimately, when the Supreme Court has clarified in the order
dated 11.04.2023 relating to grant of one increment to the
employees similarly situated to the opponent, the Litigation
Committee, which was formed by the State Government, had
undertaken necessary exercise to see that the Letters Patent
Appeals are filed. She has referred to the averments made in
Paragraph No.3 of the application and also referred to the time line
of the litigation before this Court. Thus, it is urged that the delay
may be condoned and the same order may be passed as was
passed by this Court in various other group of matters.
4. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties.
5. 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 1st 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) KPTCL and Others v. C.P. Mundinamani and Others , dated
11.04.2023, disposed of the Special Leave Petition on identical
issue.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/94/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/01/2025
undefined
6. 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.
7. 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 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)."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/94/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/01/2025
undefined
8. 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 earlier 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.
9. It is also not in dispute that the learned Single Judge as well
as the Division Benches have placed reliance on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of C.P. Mundinamani (supra) for
taking similar view.
10. In light of subsequent development, the State Government
has filed the present application seeking condonation of delay in
filing the 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. As and when such applications were filed in
various Letters Patent Appeals, in fact, the learned advocate for the
opponent-employees have consented for condonation of delay of
more than 300 days and accordingly, numerous Letters Patent
Appeals were disposed of 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).
11. The aforesaid fact is not denied by the opponent that in
identical facts and on the similar judgments, this Court has
entertained the application seeking condonation of delay the Letters
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/94/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/01/2025
undefined
Patent Appeals have been disposed. For brevity, we are not inclined
to refer to the numbers of such Appeals.
12. 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 condone the delay
in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal. The same is hereby
condoned. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. Registry
is directed to give regular number to the Letters Patent Appeal and
list the same today.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(GITA GOPI,J)
Maulik/11
