Popatbhai Sukhlalbhai Rathva vs Shri J.P. Gupta Or His Successor In ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 2242 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Popatbhai Sukhlalbhai Rathva vs Shri J.P. Gupta Or His Successor In ... on 30 January, 2025

Author: A.S. Supehia

Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/MCA/702/2024                                    ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025

                                                                                                               undefined




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                            R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT) NO. 702 of 2024

                                   In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17521 of 2023

                      ==========================================================
                                      POPATBHAI SUKHLALBHAI RATHVA & ANR.
                                                      Versus
                              SHRI J.P. GUPTA OR HIS SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE , FINANCE
                                                SECRETARY & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      PRATEEK S BHATIA(8629) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
                      MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Opponent(s) No. 2
                      NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1,3
                      ==========================================================
                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
                               and
                               HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                                                  Date : 30/01/2025
                                                   ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. At the outset, we may mention that the issue pertains to the grant of one increment to the employees of state and also who are serving under District Panchayats and other bodies, which are more than 15000 in number, and the numerous writ petitions filed by them.

2. The present application is filed seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents. By the order dated 20.10.2023, the learned Single Judge while following the directions issued by the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 11.04.2023 in case of Directior (Admn. And HR) KPTCL and Ors. v. C.P. Mundinamani and Ors., (being Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023), has allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to confer the benefit of one increment, which were to be due on 01.07.2020 and 01.07.2018.

                                                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/MCA/702/2024                                        ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025

                                                                                                                   undefined

3. The said judgment and order was carried further by the State by filing Letters Patent Appeal and since there was delay, a Civil Application (For Condonation of Delay) No.108 of 2024 in F/Letters Patent Appeal No.504 of 2024, which was rejected by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 11.01.2024. It is not in dispute that similar orders passed by this Court of the Division Benches were assailed before the Apex Court and the SLP were dismissed summarily.

4. As noticed by us, numerous matters were filed 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 C.P. Mundinamani And Ors.(supra), dated 11.04.2023, disposed of the Special Leave Petition on identical issue.

5. Thereafter, the State Government had promulgated a policy for conferring the benefits of one increment to the thousands of employees working across various local bodies and various departments of State of Gujarat. The said policy was thereafter, withdrawn in view of the order passed by the Supreme Court dated 06.09.2024 passed in Miscellaneous Application Diary No.2400/2024 in Special Leave Petition (C) No.4722/2021. The Supreme Court vide order dated 06.09.2024 had issued clarificatory directions, clarifying the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/MCA/702/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025

undefined

manner and method in which the aforesaid benefit of one increment is required to be extended. Such clarificatory directions are issued in case of C.P. Mundinamani And Ors. (supra). Such directions are as under:

"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)."

6. Thus, after the Letters Patent Appeal and SLP's are dismissed, the Supreme Court has clarified the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in C.P. Mundinamani And

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/MCA/702/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025

undefined

Ors.(supra), which has been considered by the learned Single Judges as well the Division Benches of this Court including the captioned writ petition.

7. After such clarificatory directions were issued, numerous Letters Patent Appeal are/were filed by the State Government and this Court in number of the cases on the consent of the Advocates and in order to maintain uniformity across the employees, has further disposed of the Letters Patent Appeals in line of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the order dated 06.09.2024. Accordingly, numerous employees are extended and paid the benefits, as directed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 06.09.2024.

8. In the present case also, the respondents authorities has granted the benefit of one increment to the present original petitioner i.e. the present applicant by following the direction issued by the Supreme Court in the order dated 06.09.2024. It is the case of the applicant, that in view of the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal and further SLPs, the benefit as directed by the learned single judge is required to be extended. Since this issue is being raised in several matters, we intend to answer the same in the present application.

9. Thus, at this stage, the entire issue of conferring the benefit of one increment to the employees like the present applicant, is governed by the order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the Apex Court. We may reiterate the observations passed by the Supreme Court in case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359 (SCC p. 384), which are as under:

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/MCA/702/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025

undefined

"(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a nonspeaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed.

(v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order i.e. gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the Court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the country. But, this does not amount to saying that the order of the Court, tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting the special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the parties.

(vi) Once leave to appeal has been granted and appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation.

(vii) On an appeal having been preferred or a petition seeking leave to appeal having been converted into an appeal before the Supreme Court the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a review petition is lost thereafter as provided by sub-rule (1) of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC"

Thus, an order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one, and in either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. The Apex Court has further clarified that if the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order , the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution, and , whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the Court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the country. Thus, the order dated 06.09.2024 is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/MCA/702/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025

undefined

meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution, which will govern the parties and the present proceedings.

10. Thus, in view of the subsequent development, this Court has been confronted daily, about the compliance of the directions. The respondent- authorities have been extending the benefit of once increment to its employees as per the direction issued by the Supreme Court. Thus, we do not find that there is any willful or deliberate disobedience/defiance of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. The applicant is paid the benefit of one increment, as per the direction issued by the Supreme Court vide order dated 06.09.2024.

11. In view of the above, the present contempt petition is disposed of.

12. It is also clarified that in case, the Supreme Court issues further directions, and the same has direct bearing on the issue of grant of one increments, it will be open for either of the parties to file appropriate proceedings.

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)

(GITA GOPI,J) Pankaj /81