Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Mukeshbhai Gamanlal Patel on 25 July, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5277/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5277 of
2024
In F/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 27969 of 2024
With
F/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 27969 of 2024
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1325 of 2022
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Versus
MUKESHBHAI GAMANLAL PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR, LD. ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL with
MS HETAL PATEL AGP for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR ND GOHIL(334) for the Respondent(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3,30,31,32,
33,34,35,36,37,38,39,4,5,6,7,8,9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 25/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE)
1. The Review Application is delayed by 124 days, for which, no
plausible explanation has been furnished. Only explanation given for
the delay in filing the Review Application is that the Special Leave
Petition was filed by the State Government, wherein, vide order
dated 09.08.2024, the Hon'ble Apex Court permitted the State
Government to withdraw the Special Leave Petition with a liberty to
file a review before the High Court.
2. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, the learned Additional Advocate
General has submitted that the Review Application filed by the State
in the Letters Patent Appeal No.1327 of 2019 has since been
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5277/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
decided by the learned Coordinate Division Bench of this Court vide
order dated 26.06.2025, wherein the learned Coordinate Division
Bench has observed that the writ petitioners therein have already
been extended the benefit of regularization. However, it has been
clarified that the observations recorded in the judgment and order
of the learned Single Judge therein shall not be treated as a
precedent in any other case and shall apply only to those
employees who are the members of the Sankalan Samiti as of the
year 2021 when the writ petition came to be filed. The learned
Additional Advocate General submits that this Court, in the
judgment under review, has also placed reliance on the judgment of
the learned Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent
Appeal No.1327 of 2019 in paragraph 8 of the order dated
23.04.2024. She, therefore, submits that the order dated
23.04.2024 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1325 of 2022 be
reviewed accordingly.
The learned Additional Advocate General has also relied upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Uttar Pradesh vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma reported on
AIRONLINE 2025 SC 446, wherein the entitlement of the
employees appointed under the Scheme while being upheld, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has restricted the arrears of pension for a period
of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. The
learned Additional Advocate General submits that this Court may
also restrict the arrears from the date of filing of the writ petition by
the writ petitioners.
3. Heard Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, the learned Additional Advocate
General for the review applicant and considered the arguments.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5277/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
4. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the Misc. Civil
Application (for review) No.1 of 2022 in Letters Patent Appeal
No.1327 of 2019 has been dismissed by the learned Coordinate
Division Bench of this Court on merits vide order dated 26.06.2025.
5. On merits of this Review Application, it is pertinent to note
that a statement has been made in paragraph 2.3 that all the
respondents herein were appointed on contract basis for a period of
11 months between the year 2003-2009.
6. From the said statement, it is evident that all the respondents
herein/original petitioners had continued in employment between
the year 2003-2009 with artificial gaps in their contractual
appointment. The continuous service was rendered by the original
petitioners during their contractual appointment followed by a
further period of five years in fixed pay which was also completed
by them before they were granted regular pay scale in terms of the
Government Resolution dated 16.02.2006.
7. The statement made in the Review Application further records
that the Panchayat, Rural Housing and Rural Development
Department, vide notification dated 15.06.2011, notified the Multi-
purpose Health Workers (Male) Class-III (Panchayat Service)
Recruitment Rules, 2011 in order to provide regular recruitment to
the post of Multi-purpose Health Worker (Male) in the superior
Panchayat service, Class-III, direct recruitment, with a view to bring
an end to all contractual appointments for the post of Multi-purpose
Health Worker.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5277/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
8. It is also an admitted fact of the matter that all the original
petitioners/respondents herein, who were initially appointed on
contractual basis and worked continuously with artificial breaks
between the year 2003-2009, had participated in the direct
recruitment exercise conducted pursuant to the Recruitment Rules,
2011 and they were granted appointment on a fixed pay for five
years after selection which they had completed successfully till the
year 2017 before they were absorbed in the regular pay scale.
9. The insistence of the learned counsel for the review applicant
is that with the absorption of the original petitioners in the year
2017 on the regular post in terms of the Government Resolution
dated 16.02.2006 and providing them the regular pay scale after
direct recruitment, they cannot be granted the benefit of continuity
of service since the inception of their appointment. The submission
is that the benefit of the contractual service, which was with
artificial breaks, cannot be granted to the original petitioners and
their appointments on regular basis is to be considered from the
date of their regularization/absorption in the regular pay scale.
10. The submission is found wholly misconceived, for the simple
reason that there is no dispute about the facts of the present case
that all the original petitioners/respondents herein were initially
engaged on contractual basis between the year 2003-2009 and
while continuing on the substantive post of Multi-purpose Health
Worker (Male) Class-III (Panchayat Service), they have undergone
the selection process and have been selected to the said post in
terms of the Recruitment Rules, 2011.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5277/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
11. This is the reason which we have already expressed in the
judgment and order dated 23.04.2024 while dismissing the Letters
Patent Appeal upholding the judgment and order dated 05.05.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge.
12. No error much less error apparent on the face of the record
could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the review
applicant. Moreover, rehearing within the scope of review is not
permitted. No good ground has been made out for review of the
aforesaid judgment. The Review Application is accordingly,
dismissed, both on the grounds of delay as well as on merits.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
cmk
