Gujarat High Court

Ahmedabad Muncipal Corporation vs Ramanbhai Dahyabhai Patel on 23 July, 2025

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/FA/576/2001                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025

                                                                                                                undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                                 R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 576 of 2001


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
                       ==========================================================

                                   Approved for Reporting                    Yes           No
                                                                                           No
                       ==========================================================
                                             AHMEDABAD MUNCIPAL CORPORATION
                                                          Versus
                                                RAMANBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR RAJESH P MANKAD(2637) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                                                         Date : 23/07/2025

                                                         ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant-Ahmedabad

Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the

"Corporation") under Section 96 of the Code of Civil

Procedure challenging the judgment and award dated

28.4.2000 passed in Civil Suit No. 4527 of 1986 by the

15th Court, City Civil court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter

referred to as the "trial Court") whereby the trial Court

has partly allowed the said suit and declared action of the

defendant-corporation reverting the plaintiff from the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/576/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025

undefined

post of organizer as void, illegal and arbitrary. It is also

directed that the defendant - corporation shall absorb the

plaintiff in other departments within period of two months

from the date of order.

2. The facts giving rise to present appeal are that

plaintiff appointed under Poshanyukta Ahar Yojna run by

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 1-8-76 as part time

dispatcher (P.T.D.)and appointed as daily wager

organizer on 25-8-1982. Thereafter, from 3-7-83 the

plaintiff was reverted and therefore plaintiff made

representation to the authority and then on 15th

November, 1983 he was appointed as daily wager

organizer. However, on 1-4-84 once again he was

reverted as P.T.D. Therefore, once again plaintiff made

representation before the authority concern and

considering representation made by the plaintiff, he was

once again appointed as daily wager organizer on

11-7-85. After few days only on 25-7-85 he was once

again reverted to the post of PTD and similar situated

employees who were junior employees to the plaintiff

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/576/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025

undefined

were continued as organizors.

2.1 In view of the aforesaid facts, the plaintiff

respondent herein has filed Civil Suit No. 4527 of 1986

against the corporation. The defendant corporation has

filed its written statement at Exh.14 and resisted the suit.

According to the defendant the suit is not tenable in view

of the law and facts of the case.

2.2 The trial Court after hearing both the sides and after

evaluating the evidence placed on record has passed the

impugned judgment and award.

2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and award the Corporation original defendant

has filed present appeal.

3. Heard Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel for the

appellant and Mr. Rajesh P. Mankad, learned counsel for

the respondent.

4.Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel for the appellant

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/576/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025

undefined

has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree

passed by the trial Court is contrary to law, illegal and

erroneous. He has submitted that the trial Court has

committed an error in passing the impugned judgment

and decree. He has further submitted that the trial Court

has committed error in holding that the respondent was

permanently appointed to the post of Daily Organizer.

4.1 Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel for the appellant

has submitted that the trial Court has overlooked the fact

that the respondent cannot claim any post because the

scheme is closed and the cause of action does not survive.

In view of the above, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel

for the appellant urges before the Court that the

impugned judgment and award passed by the trial court

may be set aside and present appeal may be allowed.

5. As against that, Mr. Mankad, learned counsel for the

respondent has supported the impugned judgment and

award of the trial Court. He has submitted that the trial

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/576/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025

undefined

Court has not committed any error in passing the

impugned judgment and award.

5.1 Mr. Mankad, learned counsel for the respondent also

submitted that after evaluating the evidence placed on

record and after taking into consideration all the relevant

aspects, the trial Court has passed the impugned

judgment and award. He has also submitted that the trial

Court has discussed all the relevant aspects relating to

the case and after going though the relevant record, the

trial Court has passed impugned judgment and award

which does not warrant any interference by this Court.

5.2 Mr. Mankad, learned Counsel for the respondent

urges before the Court that present appeal may be

dismissed and the impugned judgment and award passed

by the trial Court may be confirmed.

6. I have perused the relevant material and documents

placed on record. I have also examined the record and

proceedings and gone through the impugned judgment

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/576/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025

undefined

and award passed by the trial Court.

7. It appears from the record that the trial Court has

framed five issues at Exh.26 and gave answer to these

issues in paragraph No.5. The trial Court has also made

relevant discussion in paragraph Nos. 7 and 8. The trial

Court has also considered documentary evidence referred

in the judgment at Exh.38 and 40 and after appreciating

the same, the trial Court has passed impugned judgment

and award.

8. The Coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated

7.2.2001 admitted the appeal. After considering the

submissions of both the sides and after considering the

facts of the case, the Coordinate bench of this Court has,

vide order dated 22.1.2002 passed in Civil Application

No. 1274 of 2001 granted interim relief and stayed the

operation and implementation of the impugned judgment

and award passed by the Reference Court, which is till

date in existence. The relevant part of the order dated

22.1.2002 passed in Civil Application No. 1274 of 2001

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/576/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025

undefined

reads as under:-

"7. Resultantly, the implementation, execution and operation of the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2000 recorded in Civil Suit No.4527 of 1986 by the Judge, Court No.15, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad is stayed till the decision of appeal on the condition that if the applicant - Corporation is not succeeded in appeal, it shall give all the monetary benefits as if that the opponent was on the post of organizer from the date of passing of the decree. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service permitted"

9. As the dispute relates to the service condition of the

workman and therefore, the contention with regard to the

jurisdiction which is not vested in the Court, is required

to be considered. It is now well settled that the Civil

Court has no jurisdiction to pass order with regard to the

service condition of the workman.

10. Further, it appears that the dispute arose in 1984

and the suit was filed in 1986, almost 39 years have been

passed and the cause of action, which was arose at the

time of filing of suit, now does not survive.

11. In view of the above facts, present appeal stands

NEUTRAL CITATION