Gujarat High Court
Nirubha Ravubha Parmar vs State Of Gujarat For On Behalf Of on 25 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2266/2018 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2266 of 2018
==========================================================
NIRUBHA RAVUBHA PARMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT FOR ON BEHALF OF & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. VISHAL P THAKKER(7079) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DR. POOJA ASHAR, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 25/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1 Rule returnable forthwith. Dr. Pooja Ashar, learned
Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of
rule on behalf of the respondent - State. With consent of
the learned advocates, the matter is taken up for final
hearing today.
2 The petitioner has before this Court with the
following prayers:
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or
a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, to the respondent authorities to grant the
benefits of govt. resolution dtd. 17.10.1988 from the initial date of
appointment of the petitioner i.e from the year 1968;
B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or a
writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, to the respondent authorities to pay the
difference of salary, as per the prevailing pay commissions, as well
as fix the retiral benefits as per the govt. resolution, as the services
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2266/2018 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
of the petitioner had become eligible for the same after completion
of 10 years of services, in the year 1978 and further pay all
consequential monetary benefits to the petitioner in the interest of
justice;
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or
a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, to the respondent authorities to grant the
benefits of govt. resolution dtd. 17.10.1988 from the initial date of
appointment of the petitioner i.e from the year 1968 and further
directthe respondent authorities to pay the difference of salary, as
per the prevailing pay commissions, as well as fix the retiral
benefits as per the govt. resolution, as the services of the
petitioner had become eligible for the same after completion of 10
years of services, in the year 1978 and further pay all
consequential monetary benefits to the petitioner pending the
hearing, admission and final disposal of this petition, in the
interest of justice;
(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to declare that the respondent
authorities have adopted unfair labor practice and malafido with
held the benefits of continuous service to the petitioner and
therefore direct the respondent to grant all the benefits of
continuous service to the petitioner and pay the arrears of amount
with 18% interest to the petitioner and further the respondent
No.1 to recover the amount of the interest from the erring officer.
(E) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondent to pay
special cost and compensation to the petitioner for present's
litigation and for mental tension and hardship caused to the
petitioner for non granting the benefits of continuous service to the
petitioner by the respondents.
(F) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further
reliefs as deemed fit in the interest of Justice;"
2.1 The petitioner had approached the Labour Court and
the Labour Court by a common reference allowed the
reference directing the Deputy Executive Engineer to
reinstate the workman on their original post without
backwages.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2266/2018 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
2.2 On a challenge to the judgment and award of the
Labour Court, the petitions were dismissed and the
workmen were reinstated in service. Some of the
workman of the award in question except the present
petitioner approached this Court by filing Special Civil
Application No. 13095 of 2016 praying for the same
benefits as the present petitioner has prayed for.
2.3 This Court on 06.09.2018 in Special Civil Application
No. 13095 of 2016, passed the following order:
"Heard learned advocate Mr. P. C. Chadhari for the
petitioners and learned Assistant Government
Pleader Mr. K. M. Antani for the respondent state
and its authorities.
2. The six petitioners herein by filling the present
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, have
prayed for grant of benefits of resolution dated
17.10.1988 from the respective date the petitioners
fulfilled the conditions of the said resolution. They
have further prayed to pay the arrears from the date
when they become entitled to. These relief are
claimed by submitting that their earlier services as
per the judgment and award of the labour court
were liable to be considered for the purpose of
extending the benefits of the aforesaid resolution.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they have
been working as daily wagers under the respondent
No.3 Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2266/2018 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
Rajkot, since number of years. The petitioner No.1
has been working for more than 30 years, the
petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 6 have been working for
more than 25 years; whereas petitioner Nos. 4 and 5
also have been working for 25 years, having
superannuated thereafter. It is their case that they
approached the respondent authorities and
requested the grant of the benefits of resolution
dated 17.10.1988, however, their request made on
several times did not yield any result.
3.1 The services of the petitioners were terminated
at one point of time in the past which compelled
them to raise industrial dispute. The labour court,
Surendranagar, by its common judgment and award
dated 26.12.2006 allowed the Reference directing
the respondent No.4 Deputy Executive Engineer to
reinstate the petitioners on their original post
without back wages. This judgment and award of the
labour court was unsuccessfully challenged before
this court by the respondents who had filed Special
Civil Application No. 16026 of 2007 to Special Civil
Application No. 16029 of 2007. The petitions came
to be dismissed on 30.07.2007 by this court.
Thereafter the petitioners were reinstated in service
by office order dated 3.12.2008. As the respondents
had not been extending the benefits of the
resolution, the petitioners had again knocked the
doors of this court by filling Special Civil Application
No. 5816 of 2011. This petition was disposed of on
2.5.2011 wherein this court directed the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioners
in light of the attendant facts.
3.2 It is the case of the petitioners that despite the
aforesaid directions once again given by the High
Court, the respondents continued to deprive of their
legitimate claim for extension of the benefits of
resolution date 17.10.1988. The petitioners have
named other employees who were also terminated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2266/2018 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
and their termination was set aside by the labour
court in similar way as turned in the case of the
petitioners and that those persons were reinstated
and granted the benefits of resolution dated
17.10.1988, but the petitioners were discriminated
against.
4. The benefits flowing from resolution dated
17.10.1988 are based on the concept of continuous
service. The daily rated workmen having been
completed certain numbers by putting continuous
service are given benefits of pay scale permanency
etc under the said resolution. The case of the
petitioners for extending the beneficial provisions of
the said resolution is based on the judgment and
award of the labour court. The petitioners
contended that since the labour court has reinstated
them, their services are laible to be treated as
continuous required to be reckoned from the date of
actual joining. Learned advocate for the petitioner
relied on decision of this court in Nanjibhai
Madhabhai vs. State of Gujarat being Special Civil
Application No. 2192 of 2017 decided on 24.7.2018
to submit that the facts of that case was similar and
the petitioner of the said petition was identical
situated who was given the relief by this court. 4.1
On the other hand, learned Assistant Government
Pleader Mr. Antani submitted that the continuity of
service has not been expressly granted by the labour
court and therefore there is no continuity of service,
the petitioners cannot claim benefit of resolution on
the basis of they had completed continuous service
for certain number of years.
5. In Vasantika R. Dalia Vs. Baroda Municipal
Corporation [1998(2) LLJ 172], this Court was posed
to interpret the judgment and award of the Labour
Court which granted the relief of reinstatement to
the workmen. The relief of back-wages was denied
and the relief of continuity of service was not denied
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2266/2018 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
specifically and that in the relief of reinstatement
granted, the word 'continuity' was not mentioned.
5.1 The Court observed to lay down that "It may be
straightaway observed that once the relief of
reinstatement is granted, the continuity of service is
a direct consequence rather inherent in the relief of
this nature". It was held that when the relief of
reinstatement was granted and the continuity of
service was not specifically denied, the workman has
to be relegated to the same position as was held by
it at the time of termination. When the order of
termination was found to be void, the petitioner, it
was held, would be entitled to hold the relief of
reinstatement with continuity where there was no
mention of specific denial to such continuity.
5.2 The Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh Vs. State
of Punjab and others [2002 (92) FLR 838], held that
once the plaintiff was directed to be reinstated in
service upon setting aside of the order of
termination, continuity of service could not be
denied. The Court observed that the case was not of
fresh appointment but it was one of reinstatement
and that being the position, it was observed that the
High Court was in error in denying the continuity of
service.
6. Thus and therefore, even though the judgment
and award of the Labour Court had not expressly
granted the continuity, at the same time it did not
deny the continuity in any expressed terms. The
grant of continuity would have to be read with the
order of reinstatement. The petitioner would be
entitled to be treated continuous in service upon
reinstatement. Resultantly, the petitioner would be
entitled to be granted the benefits of resolution
dated 17.10.1988 accordingly by reckoning his
services as continuous from the date of his initial
appointment.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2266/2018 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
6.1 When the award of the Labour Court had not
expressly denied the continuity is to be interpreted
as per the principles of law laid down by the
Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh (supra), the
concept of continuity could not be distinguished for
the purpose of granting any other service benefits.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader made a
failed attempt to submit that the continuity for the
purpose of granting benefits under resolution dated
17.10.1988 may be treated differently. Any such
distinction would be artificial distinction. once the
labour court granted the reinstatement and the
continuity was not expressly denied, the continuity
benefit could be said to be deemed to have been
granted and by deeming fiction the services of the
petitioners should have to be treated as continuous
upon their reinstatement.
6.2 Not only that the averments in the petition
remained undisputed that other similarly situated
employees shri Pravinbhai Madhavbhai, shri
Manubhai Govindbhai and shri Maheboob
Husainbhai in whose favour also there was judgment
and award of the labour court in similar way, they
were shown to have extended the benefits of
resolution dated 17.10.1988 by passing order dated
29.5.2009 by the authorities. The petitioners are
liable to be treated with parity for the purpose of
extension of benefits in question.
6.3 The petitioners cannot be treated differently
once the similarly placed employees were extended
the benefits of resolution dated 17.10.1988 by
considering their services as continuous after the
reinstatement is effected pursuant to labour court's
judgment and award. In the above view, the denial
of continuity of service to the petitioner would stand
only for breach of Article 14 of the Constitution.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2266/2018 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
7. As a result of the above discussion, the petition
deserves to be allowed. The respondents are
directed to confer and grant the benefits to the
petitioner under resolution dated 17.10.1988 of the
State Government by reckoning the services of the
petitioner from the initial date of his joining and
depending upon the completion of requisite number
of years to confer the corresponding benefits under
the said resolution. The services of the petitioner
shall be treated as continuous with effect from the
initiate date of joining till the date of reinstatement
and notional benefits would be calculated and
granted for the period from the date of
reinstatement onwards. The arrears which may arise
and become payable by virtue of this order from
onwards the date of reinstatement shall be paid by
the authorities to the petitioner within a period of
ten weeks from the date of receipt of the present
order. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is
permitted."
3 Admittedly, the present petitioner is similarly
situated, inasmuch as, he was part of the same award of
the Labour Court which was under consideration in the
petition and the order referred to hereinabove. Obviously
therefore, the present petitioner cannot be treated
differently than the petitioners of Special Civil Application
No. 13095 of 2016.
4 Accordingly, the respondents are directed to confer
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2266/2018 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
and grant the benefits to the petitioner under resolution
dated 17.10.1988 of the State Government by reckoning
the services of the petitioner from the initial date of his
joining and depending upon the completion of requisite
number of years to confer the corresponding benefits
under the said resolution. The services of the petitioner
shall be treated as continuous with effect from the initial
date of joining till the date of reinstatement and notional
benefits would be calculated and granted for the period
from the date of reinstatement onwards. The arrears
which may arise and become payable by virtue of this
order from the date of reinstatement shall be paid by the
authorities to the petitioner within a period of ten weeks
from the date of receipt of the present order. The petition
is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute
accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
DIWAKAR SHUKLA
