Gujarat High Court
Sureshbhai Shanabhai Parekh vs State Of Gujarat on 29 January, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17458/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17458 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
=====================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
=====================================================
SURESHBHAI SHANABHAI PAREKH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SANJAY UDHWANI ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR UM SHASTRI(830) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 29/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave with
learned advocate Mr. Hem D. Dave appearing for
the petitioner and learned Assistant Government
Pleader Mr. Sanjay Udhwani appearing for the
respondent No.1 - State and learned advocate Mr.
U. M. Shastri appearing for the respondents No.2
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17458/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
and 3.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has
prayed for a direction to hold that the
petitioner is entitled to the benefit of
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and has
further prayed for a direction to treat the
petitioner a permanent employee after completion
of ten years of service from his date of joining
and to hold that the petitioner is eligible to
get all benefits of permanent employee including
regular pay scale from the date on which the
petitioner completed ten years of services. The
petitioner has also prayed for benefit of
regular pay scale and to pay the difference of
salary.
3. With the consent of learned advocates appearing
for the respective parties, the matter was taken
up finally. Hence, RULE. Learned Assistant
Government Pleader Mr. Sanjay Udhwani waives the
service of rule on behalf of the respondent -
State and learned advocate Mr. U. M. Shastri
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17458/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
waives the service of notice on behalf of the
respondents No.2 and 3.
4. Brief facts of the case are as under :-
4.1 That the petitioner was appointed as a
daily wager on 28.1.2001 on the post of driver
in Taluka Panchayat Godhra and in the general
meeting dated 28.9.2007 held by District
Panchayat Godhra Panchmahal at Godhra vide
resolution No.77, recommendation was made to
appropriate authority to permit the Panchayat to
regularize the services of the petitioner on
permanent basis.
4.2 Pursuant to the resolution passed by
District Panchayat, the District Panchayat
Service Selection Committee Panchmahal passed
another resolution for regularization of the
present petitioner as per Rule 20(3) of Gujarat
Panchayat Service Classification and Recruitment
Rules, 1988. Vide letter dated 26.9.2011, the
District Panchayat requested the concerned
Deputy Secretary to pass a resolution to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17458/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
regularize the drivers on permanent basis.
4.3 Another such recommendation was made on
30.4.2013, though the recommendation was made to
regularize the services of the petitioner, the
respondent Panchayat vide order dated 11.7.2013
terminated the services of the petitioner.
Hence, the petitioner preferred Special Civil
Application No. 13133 of 2013 for quashing and
setting aside the order of termination dated
11.7.2023.
4.4 The aforesaid petition was disposed of
vide order dated 1.10.2013 by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court and the petitioner was
directed to make a representation to the
respondent authorities and the respondents were
directed to consider the same. Accordingly, the
petitioner made the representation and
petitioner's representation was considered
positively and the respondents took a stand that
the petitioner services are not dismissed but he
was relieved.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17458/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
4.5 Thereafter though petitioner preferred
Special Civil Application No.2376 of 2014 before
this Court praying for regularization of service
as well as challenging the termination,
subsequently, the petitioner raised an
industrial dispute by filing Reference (T) No. 1
of 2015 before labour Court at Godhra who vide
its award dated 23.10.2019 directed the
respondents to reinstate the services of the
petitioner with 50% back wages and continuity in
service.
4.6 The respondents challenged the order
dated 23.10.2019 passed by labour Court Godhra
in Reference No.1 of 2015 before this Court by
filing Special Civil Application No. 23013 of
2019 which was dismissed by this Court vide
order dated 29.9.2020 and when the aforesaid
order dated 29.9.2020 became subject matter of
challenge by way of Letters Patent Appeal No.
339 of 2020, the Division Bench of this Court
dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal vide order
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17458/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
dated 20.7.2020.
4.7 Thereafter, the petitioner was
compelled to file contempt proceedings, his
services was reinstated which would indicate
that the petitioners services were reinstated
with continuity of service.
4.8 While dismissing the Letters Patent
Appeal preferred by the State Government, the
Division Bench of this Court had observed in
paragraph No.6.2 that the case of the petitioner
is required to be considered in light of the
fact that he is the senior most driver of the
District and in view of the fact that he has
completed more than ten years of service, his
case could not be overlooked.
4.9 It is in this background that the
petition is filed. After the petitioner was
reinstated, the petitioner's petition seeking
regularization being Special Civil Application
No.2376 of 2014 which was pending before the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17458/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
Court, came up for hearing on 16.6.2022 and the
Co-ordinate Bench directed the respondents to
consider the representation made by the
petitioner and to decide the same in accordance
with law.
4.10 Despite the aforesaid order dated
16.6.2022 it seems that the said representation
is yet not decided and that is how the present
petition is preferred by the petitioner seeking
the relief which is already stated in foregoing
paragraphs.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave appearing for
the petitioner submitted that though the
petitioners services were terminated in the year
2013 upon approaching the labour Court, the
petitioner succeeded in the proceedings before
the labour Court and the labour Court not only
quashed the order of termination but granted
reinstatement with continuity of service to the
petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17458/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
5.1 Despite the fact that the respondent
carried the aforesaid order up to Division Bench
of this Court, the respondents failed. On the
contrary the Division Bench of this Court
observed in paragraph No.6.2 and directed the
respondent to consider his case for his
entitlement to be continued as senior most
driver and about applicability of Government
Resolution dated 17.10.1988 by making
observations in paragraph No. 6.2 of Letters
Patent Appeal No. 339 of 2020 which was decided
vide order dated 20.7.2020.
5.2 Learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave than
relied upon decision of this Court in case of
District Rural Development Agency and others
versus Kanabhai Khumabhai Bariya in Special
Civil Application No. 13798 of 2018 and allied
matters dated 20.06.2019 and by relying upon
paragraph No. 12 of the said decision submitted
that in similar set of facts, the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court held that the concerned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17458/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
workman shall be entitled and eligible for all
consequential benefits and arrears as per the
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.
5.3 Learned advocate Dipak Dave submitted
that the aforesaid decision was carried in
appeal by the respondents by filing Letters
Patent Appeal No.734 of 2021 and even the appeal
also was dismissed by Division Bench of this
Court and the Division Bench while making
observations in paragraph No.6 dismissed the
Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the
respondents.
5.4 Learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave pointed
out that in paragraph No.6 of the decision, the
Division Bench of this Court considered the fact
that law with regard to Government Resolution
dated 17.10.1988 is no more resintegra and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in catena
of decisions reiterated the same and ultimately,
the appeal was dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17458/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
5.5 Accordingly, learned advocate Mr. Dipak
Dave submitted that as the facts of the present
petition cannot be distinguished from the facts
of the decisions relied upon by learned advocate
Mr. Dipak Dave and in view of the settled legal
preposition, the benefits of Government
Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and all other
consequential benefits be extended to the
petitioner also by issuing appropriate direction
to the respondent authorities.
6. Learned advocate Mr. U. M. Shastri appearing for
the respondent though vehemently opposed the
petition could not dispute the fact that the
petitioner is serving with the Panchayat since
2001 and even while his services were terminated
and when the said action was challenged by the
workman, the labour Court passed an order
reinstating his service with continuity of
service and the aforesaid order has been
confirmed up to Division Bench of this Court.
7. It is also an undisputed fact as nothing
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17458/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
contrary could be pointed out by learned
advocate Mr. U. M. Shastri appearing for the
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that the present
petitioner is in service since 2001 and
therefore by virtue of the order passed by
labour Court, he is in continuous service since
last more than twenty years and therefore,
though opposed, the petition prayed for passing
appropriate order.
7.1 I have heard learned advocates
appearing for the parties and perused the
record. Upon perusal of record, I found that it
is undisputed fact that the petitioner is in
service since 2001 and though there was a break
in service for few years by virtue of award of
the labour Court in Reference (T) No.1 of 2015
dated 23.10.2019, the petitioner was reinstated
in the services and his services were directed
to be treated as continuous service and the
aforesaid order was confirmed up to the Division
Bench of this Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17458/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
7.2 I have also considered the fact that
upon reinstatement, when the petitioner
approached this Court for regularization, while
disposing of the petition, the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court directed the petitioner to make a
representation for the same and till date the
representation has remained undecided.
7.3 When the law in respect of Government
Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is very clear by way
of catena of decisions and when nothing contrary
could be pointed out by learned advocate Mr. U.
M. Shastri to indicate that the petitioner is
not in continuous services since last more than
ten years, there is no question that the
benefits of Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988 can be denied to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled to
benefits of Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988 and all consequential benefits
flowing from the same, the same may be counted
by treating the petitioner in service since 2001
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17458/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
from his date of joining and accordingly, the
respondents are directed to carry out necessary
exercise by revised pay fixations and other
consequential actions be taken by the
respondents as early as possible.
7.4 As the petitioner is held entitled to
the benefits of Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988 and all consequential benefits, the
respondents are directed to do the needful and
to ensure that the petitioner gets all the
benefits flowing from the aforesaid Government
Resolution as early as possible but in any case
within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of the order.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions,
the present petition stands allowed. Rule made
absolute. No order as to costs.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
Pallavi
