Gujarat High Court
Ramubhai @ Rambhai Maganbhai Gamit vs State Of Gujarat on 29 January, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1102/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1102 of 2025
=========================================
RAMUBHAI @ RAMBHAI MAGANBHAI GAMIT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=========================================
Appearance :
JAGATSINH L VASAVA for the Petitioner.
MR ADITYA DAVDA, AGP for the Respondents.
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 29/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for
direction to the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner w.e.f.
1.1.1996 as approved by DEEO, Surat and Jilla Sahayak Inspector
Local Fund Accounts Office, Surat on 27.11.1999 and 16.5.2013 i.e.
@ 6550 per month in the pay scale of Rs.5500 - 175 - 9000 w.e.f.
1.1.1996 and release arrears of pay. The petitioner has further
prayed for fixation of pay in respect of petitioner's pension in the
scale of Rs.9300-34800 G.P. 4400 under Gujarat Civil Service
(Revised) Pay Rules, 2009 w.e.f. 1.2.2006 as approved by DEO,
Surat in August, 2011. The petitioner has also prayed to direct the
respondents to release the petitioner's arrears of pay w.e.f.
1.1.1996 and arrears of pension and gratuity w.e.f. 1.7.2007 with
16% interest p.a.
2. Considering the above prayers made by the petitioner,
learned advocate Mr. Jagatsinh L. Vasava was asked as to when the
petitioner retired from service, he was fair in stating that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1102/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
petitioner had retired in the year 2007 and though the grievance
was existing at that time also, as the petitioner kept on making
representations during all these period, therefore, there is delay of
around 17 years in preferring the present petition.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Vasava pointed out that there
are certain prayers which would indicate that the cause of action
arose in the year 2011 and, therefore, it cannot be said that
petition is filed after delay of around 18 years as the petitioner was
agitating his grievance till 2011 which would curtail the period of
delay. He, therefore, requested to consider the case of the
petitioner sympathetically ignoring the aforesaid delay which
according to learned advocate Mr. Vasava is no delay at all in view
of the fact that the petitioner was kept making representations all
throughout which have never been answered by the respondents
and, therefore, the petitioner was under the hope that sooner or
later, grievance of the petitioner would be considered which did
not happen and that is how the present petition is preferred.
4. Learned AGP Mr. Aditya Davda opposed the petition
and submitted that long delay even if it is considered from 2011 i.e.
of 14 years, the same is not sufficiently explained in the petition.
There is nothing in the petition to indicate or explain the delay of
14 years and, therefore, in absence of there being any sufficient
explanation of delay, the vital aspect of delay cannot be ignored. In
support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ravindrakumar
Thakorlal Garasiya v. State of Gujarat, Letters Patent Appeal
No.236 of 2023 decided on 4.7.2023 wherein in similar set of
facts, the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1102/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
petition of the petitioner and when the said order was carried in
appeal, the Division Bench of this Court had also dismissed the said
appeal in absence of any satisfactory explanation of delay.
By relying upon the above cited decisions, he prayed
for dismissal of the petition.
5. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and perused the record. On perusal of the
record, I found that the petitioner's grievance relates back to the
year 2007 and at that time, though the petitioner was in service, he
did not challenge the action of the respondents of fixing his pay
scale erroneously and though the petitioner's prayer is to fix the
pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996 to 2007 i.e. for a period of 11 years, the
petitioner remained in service. However, the petitioner as it seems
did not raise the grievance during the time while he was in service.
6. Even after retirement in the year 2007 and even if it is
believed that the petitioner has kept making representations till
2011, right from 2007 to 2025, the Court cannot shut its eyes to the
fact that during all these years, the petitioner did not approach this
Court and set idle in hope that his representations would be
decided favourably.
7. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in the decision
in the case of Ravindrakumar Thakorlal Garasiya v. State of
Gujarat, Letters Patent Appeal No.236 of 2023 decided on
4.7.2023 (Supra), has observed in paragraphs 17 and 18 as
under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1102/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
"17. As noted earlier, the petitioner did not explain
his slumber of eight years. He has not made a
whisper of word that why he has not raised his claim
within time, but raised after eight years i.e.
belatedly. In absence of any satisfactory explanation
for delay, exercise of judicial discretion under the
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India cannot be exercised and the
learned Single Judge has rightly done so in the facts
and circumstances of the case.
18. Learned advocate Mr. NK Majmudar pressed
into service the judgment of Special Civil Application
No.10751 of 2020 to contend that the delay in
making the submission would not be ground for
rejection in every case. It is settled principle on the
precedent that circumstantial flexibility or factual
differences makes a law of world of disparity
between conclusion in two cases. The reason in one
case cannot be blindly followed until the facts of
other case is similarly situated and matched. In
deciding the cases, which largely depends upon
facts, one should avoid the temptation to decide case
by matching the colour of one case against the
colour of another. The issue before the Division
Bench in Special Civil Application No.10751 of 2020
was with regard to increment, which fell due on 1st
July as per the amendment of Rule 10 of the Central
Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. The
original petitioner was not granted yearly increment
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1102/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
as he was retired prior to the increment fell due. In
background of this fact, since deny to grant
increment has effected over the pension, the Division
Bench has held that belated approach on the part of
the original petitioner for making the representation
cannot be a ground to reject the petition. The
present case, as stated herein above, is altogether
and quite different. Hence, this judgment does not
render help to the petitioner."
8. In view of the above observations of the Division Bench
of this Court wherein the Division Bench of this Court in a case
where delay of 8 years was not sufficiently explained, was pleased
to dismiss the appeal of the appellant who was also claiming
benefit of third higher pay scale. In the instant case, delay is much
more longer i.e. 18 years from the date of retirement of the
petitioner and, therefore, in view of the fact that delay of 18 years
is not sufficiently explained, the present petition is required to be
dismissed and the same is dismissed on the ground of delay itself.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
SAVARIYA
