Gujarat High Court
Natubhai Ishwarbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 30 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3386/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3386 of 2010
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10274 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NATUBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Petitioner(s) No. 3
MS SHIVANI J BAROT FOR MR PA JADEJA(3726) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,2,3.1,4,5,6,7
MS SURBHI BHATI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 30/07/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. As common question of facts and law are involved
in these petitions, with the consent of learned advocates for
the parties, these petitions are disposed of by this common
judgment.
2. The petitioners were serving as Livestock
Inspectors under the respondent no.2 and they retired from
the services between the year 2003 to 2005. These petitions
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3386/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
pertain to the exercise of option for the revised pay scale
w.e.f. 1.1.1987 consequent upon the introduction of Gujarat
Civil Services (Revision and Pay) Rules, 1987. The petitioners
could not exercise the options within the prescribed period
and hence, they approached the competent authorities. Since
the authorities refused to do anything in the matter, the
petitioners, along with others, filed appeals before the Gujarat
Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar, which were dismissed
vide order dated 4.6.2007 by observing that since the
Government in finance department had already refused
options to the appellants of the Appeal Nos.88 to 91 of 2004
which were decided by the Tribunal on 4.8.2006, the Tribunal
is unable to interfere in the present appeals. In the said
appeal nos.88 to 91 of 2004, decided on 4.8.2006, the
Tribunal had directed the Director of Animal Husbandry
(respondent no.2 herein) to recommend to the State
Government to accept the options of those appellants and the
State Government was directed to take a decision in the
matter.
3. It is stated that pursuant to the said order, by
communication dated 21.9.2006, the Director of Animal
Husbandry wrote a letter to the State Government in
Agriculture and Cooperative Department to send the options
received from those persons to the finance department for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3386/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
taking necessary decision as regards the options. By letter
dated 11.11.2006, the Deputy Secretary of the Agriculture and
Cooperative Department informed the Director of Animal
Husbandry that the finance department had not accepted the
options of these appellants. The said appellants are
petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos.10274 of 2008.
The petitioners of Special Civil Application No.3386 of 2010
are similarly situated to the petitioners of Special Civil
Application No.10274 of 2008.
Hence, these petitions are filed with prayers to direct the
respondents to accept the options of the petitioners as
required by the Resolution dated 14.7.1988 and to revise
their pay and pension accordingly and to pay the amounts
due and payable with 10% interest.
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted
that the petitioners are entitled to exercise the options as a
result of the Gujarat Civil Service (Revisions of Pay) Rules,
1988; the last date for exercising the options was 30.9.1988
as per the Government Resolution dated 14.7.1988; the
petitioners could not exercise the options since they were not
intimated to do so nor were they aware of the same since
they were serving in remote villages; that the options were
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3386/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
to be exercised in the prescribed format by 30.9.1988 but
such a format was never supplied to the petitioners; that
though the petitioners worked so dedicatedly in their entire
service record and because of the negligence of the
respondents, the petitioners are facing adverse results. He,
therefore, prayed to allow these petitions.
4.2 In support of his submissions, learned advocate for
the petitioners has relied on the following citations:
(1) S.D.M.Basha V/s Deputy Inspector General of Police
reported in 1993(1) GLR 877 of this Court.
(2) Jinder Singh and others decided on 17.12.2018 by the
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP-7855 of 2014
and allied matters.
5. Per contra, learned AGP has submitted that the
th
4 Pay Commission was adopted in the State of Gujarat and
made applicable from 1.1.1986; a certain amendment was
made in the form of Resolution dated resolution dated
14.7.1988, wherein the Gujarat Civil Service (ROP) Rules,
1987 for fixation of pay for Government employee who opt
for revise scale of pay from a date subsequent to 1.1.1986
was passed; the cutoff date for pay fixation was mentioned
under the Government Resolution dated 14.7.1988; the cutoff
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3386/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
date was kept on 30.12.1988, wherein the options were to be
exercised in the background of the scheme plotted by the
State Government; consequent upon the implementation of
Gujarat Civil Service (ROP) Rules, 1987 the petitioner did
not exercise the option within the prescribed time and cutoff
date; that the respondent office had communicated and it was
also brought to the notice and knowledge of he department
as well as the employee through concerned head of regional
department regarding cutoff date and option, as well as, the
last for giving option form and the form in which it has to
be submitted was also informed; that the other employee
working along with the petitioner had been informed as well
as exercised the option and therefore stand taken by the
petitioners goes converse by stating that they were not
informed; the facts of the judgments relied on by learned
advocate for the petitioner are different than the present case
and therefore, are not applicable to the present case. She,
therefore, submitted that when the petitioners were lethargic
and non-vigilant about exercising the option, they cannot be
given the benefit as prayed for. She, therefore, prayed to
dismiss this petition.
5.1 In support of her submissions, she has relied on
the following citation:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3386/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
(1) Bank of India & Ors. V/s Muthyala Saibaba
Suryanarayana Murthy & Anr. Of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Civil Appeal No.3829 of 2025 decided on 18.3.2025.
6. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and
also perused the material on record with a view to Fiat Lux
about merits of case of the parties.
7. It transpires that the petitioners were working as
Livestock Inspectors under the respondent no.2 and they
retired from service between the years 2004 and 2008; the
amendment was made in the form of Resolution dated
14.7.1988, wherein the Gujarat Civil Services (ROP) Rules,
1987 for fixation of pay for government employees who opt
for revised scale of pay from a date subsequent to 1.1.1986
was passed; however, the petitioners had to exercise option
within the prescribed time and cutoff date, which was kept
on 30.12.1988; the record shows that the communication was
made to the head of the department and also to the
employee through the head of the regional department about
the cutoff date and option, however, the petitioners did not
opt for the same. Further, the cutoff date was 30.12.1988,
the appeals before the Tribunal were filed in the year 2004
and 2006; the petitioners retired in the years between 2004
and 2008; what the petitioners did for all these years is not
coming on the record; it cannot be believed that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3386/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
petitioners did not come to know about the same all these
years and suddenly after so many years, the petitioners have
claimed for the said benefits.
8. At this stage, it is fruitful to refer to the
judgment relied on by the learned AGP Muthyala Saibaba
Suryanarayana Murthy & Anr., wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held as under:
"15. The Division Bench referred to the beneficial nature of
the policy to grant relief to the first respondent. Whenever a
policy is formulated, which is beneficial in nature for the
subjects to be governed thereby but, at the same time,
prescribes a time limit for the subjects to act, it is not and
cannot be the law that the proposed benefits can be availed
of by a subject beyond the stipulated period and at any time
in future suiting his convenience.
16. Almost half a century back, this Court in Mani Subrat
Jain V. State of Haryana had sounded a word of caution as
follows:
"9.....It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one
can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must
be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally
protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask
for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3386/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has
a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing
something...."
17. In the present case, after the first respondent did not
avail the opportunity to exercise option by 30 th October,
2010, there was no occasion for denial or deprivation of a
legal right of the first respondent by the appellants. The
harm or loss arising out of failure of the first respondent to
opt for the pension scheme was not wrongful in the eye of
law since it is he who had to be blamed for the situation
where he found himself. The first respondent had neither
sustained any injury to any legally protected interest nor
had he been subjected to a legal wrong. He did not suffer a
legal grievance and had no legal peg for a justiciable claim
to hang on. Thus, not having a legally protected right which
could have been judicially enforced by seeking a mandamus,
the writ petition of the first respondent was plainly not
maintainable and, thus, the Single Judge rightly dismissed
the same.
18. The Division Bench, in course of its interference with
the order dismissing the writ petition, failed to realise that
in exercise of writ powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution, the high courts of the country do not come to
the aid of the tardy, the indolent, and the lethargic. This
golden truth has to borne in mind by all courts exercising
high prerogative writ jurisdiction. While mandamus will issue
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3386/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
to reach injustice, whereever found, it is equally true that
exercise of discretion should not unnecessarily be coloured by
considerations of sympathy or grace or compassion or charity.
These are beyond the scope of the high courts' writ powers.
In cases such as these, where acceptable justification for the
failure to act with expedition is not proffered, the high
courts should stay at a distance."
9. The judgments relied on by learned advocate for the
petitioner are not applicable to the case on hand as the facts
are different.
10. In view of the above discussion and considering
that `time and tide wait for none', though the petitioners
were having chance to exercise option with a cutoff date,
they did not avail opportunity and there is no satisfactory
justification coming forth for the histrionic behaviour and
after a long lapse, they have prayed for the same, which
cannot be entertained and therefore, these petitions are
required to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
Notice/Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands
vacated.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
SRILATHA
