Gujarat High Court
Vijay Sevaram Wadhwani vs State Of Gujarat on 30 January, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1138/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1138 of 2025
=========================================
VIJAY SEVARAM WADHWANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=========================================
Appearance :
MR MB GOHIL for the Petitioner.
MR NS TAHILRAMANI for the Petitioner.
MR ADITYA DAVDA, AGP for the Respondents.
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 30/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
By way of the present petition, the petitioner has
prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay the benefits of Tiku
Commission recommendations to the petitioner along with
consequential benefits and retiral benefits including pension.
2. As the cause title indicates the age of the petitioner as
72 years, upon a query from the Court, learned advocate Mr. Gohil
submitted that the petitioner retired from the post of Medical
Officer, Grade - II on 12.12.2008. Hence, there is delay of 17 years
in preferring the present petition. On perusal of the petition, the
only explanation for delay caused according to Mr. Gohil is that the
petitioner kept on making representations which the Court could
find in paragraphs 3 and 4. However, the same cannot be
considered as sufficient explanation for meeting with the aspect of
long delay of 17 years.
3. Learned AGP Mr. Aditya Davda opposed the petition
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1138/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
and submitted that not only the petition is suffering from long delay
of 17 years, but at the same time, considering the averments of the
petition in paragraph 3, the petitioner made the representation in
2010 and 2013 and thereafter, straightway another representation
was made in the year 2022 which would indicate that the petitioner
was not serious about his rights and 2022 onwards, the
representations were made just with a view to breach the delay.
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
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 decision, he prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
4. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and perused the record. On perusal of the
record, I found that it is true that earlier the petitioner has
approached this Court by way of SCA No.10947 of 2024 and the
said petition was disposed of on 13.8.2024. However, merely
because the petitioner's representation is not decided favourably,
the aspect of long delay cannot be overlooked. At one point of
time, learned advocate Mr. Gohil also submitted that the petitioner
shall not claim benefits after 2009 i.e. from the date on which he
made first representation and he also submitted that the petitioner
is ready and willing to waive the interest for the interregnum
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1138/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
period. But the aforesaid submission has not appealed me simply
for the reason that when a person has sat idle for a period of 17
years and on one fine morning, if he starts claiming dues for which
according to him he was entitled since 2008, such dues cannot be
permitted to be claimed after long delay of 17 years, more
particularly, when such untimely dues if are considered by
entertaining petition would impose considerable huge financial
burden on the State. Therefore, if a person who is not vigilant
about his rights, such person cannot be encouraged by entertaining
the petition like the present one which is filed after delay of 17
years.
5. 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:-
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1138/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
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
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."
6. In view of the above observations of the Division Bench
of this Court wherein the Division Bench of this Court in a case
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1138/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
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. 17 years from the date of retirement of the
petitioner and, therefore, in view of the fact that delay of 17 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
