Gujarat High Court
Executive Engineer vs Allarakhiben Ismailbhai Qureshi on 16 June, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/711/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 711 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16062 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 711 of 2025
==========================================================
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ANR.
Versus
ALLARAKHIBEN ISMAILBHAI QURESHI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPEN K DAVE(3296) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MS SHRUTIV DHURVE AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR NILESH M SHAH(780) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 16/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
The present LPA is directed against the judgment and order dated
17/02/2025 passed in the captioned petition, whereby the learned Single
Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the workman, who was
serving under the appellants as a daily wager labourer. It appears that the
workman was terminated on 01/04/1985 which culminated into reference
proceedings being Reference (LCS) No.43 of 2002 which was also
challenged by the appellants by filing SCA No.24629 of 2006, which
came to be dismissed on 24/01/2013.
2. On 10/08/2016, the Deputy Executive Engineer, Patdi had passed
an order granting benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/711/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
with effect from 01.04.2012 considering the reinstatement date
i.e.09.09.2006 appointment date and past service from 1975 to
08.09.2006 had not been considered. Thereafter, on 19.05.2017 in
pursuance to the said order, difference of salary of Rs.3,01,036/-from
01.04.2012 till payment had been paid to the petitioner by cheque. In the
meantime, the office of Deputy Executive Engineer, Flood Relief
Panchayat (R & B) Sub Division, Patdi has been merged with the
respondent No.3. The petitioner has been retired from the service by
order dated 30.09.2019 on account of her superannuation, but however,
the respondents have not given any retirement benefits to the petitioner.
3. It appears that thereafter since the benefits were not granted by the
appellants arising out of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988,
the captioned petition was filed by the workman being SCA No.16062 of
2020. The learned Single Judge has allowed the said writ petition; order
of which is impugned in the present LPA.
4. Learned Advocate Mr.Dave appearing for the appellants, has
submitted that in the earlier petition filed by the present appellants being
SCA No.24629 of 2006, the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the
petition has observed that since no back wages and continuity of service
is granted, the petition is devoid of merits and it was dismissed. Thus, it is
submitted that the respondent is not entitled to any benefit arising out of
the petition filed by the appellants, which came to be dismissed; however
no such back wages or benefit of continuity of service is granted and,
therefore, in his submission the respondent is not entitled to any benefit
arising out of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 since the
Labour Court has also not granted continuity of service. It is also
submitted that the original reference is also filed belatedly.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/711/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
5. We have examined the impugned judgment and order passed by
the learned Single Judge. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. The
award passed by the Labour Court dated 07.08.2006 passed in Reference
(LCS) No.43 of 2002, mentions that the respondent, who was working as
a daily wager is ordered to be reinstated in service; without back wages.
However, the Labour Court has not recorded anything with regard to the
continuity of service. It is settled legal proposition of law that, once an
employee is granted reinstatement, the continuity of service follows
automatically. There are various writ petitions which were filed in this
Court and the LPAs on the said issue, which are referred by the learned
Single Judge, more particularly, paragraph Nos.7 and 10 to 11, which
reads thus:
"7. After decision of this Court in Special Civil Application
No.24629 of 2006, which came to be decided on 24.01.2013, the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PWD Employees Union &
others (supra) of 2013 and 2019 as well as the judgment and order
of the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
174 of 2017 came to be passed explaining the Government
Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the effect that once the employee's
service is restored, then there shall be deemed continuity of such
service. Therefore, order dated 24.01.2013 particularly paragraph
No.6 thereof shall now be read as the present petitioners having
been restored in service with continuity thereof.
xxx xxx xxx
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court had dismissed the Special Leave
Petition Nos.2116/2022 along with a bunch of similar matters by
order dated 22.01.2024 where, the order dated 20.07.2021 passed
in Letters Patent Appeal No.485 of 2017 was also under challenge.
Thus, from whichever angle one looks at the issue at hand, the
same have been conclusively and repeatedly covered in favour of
the petitioner and therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding
that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Government
Resolution dated 17.10.1988 as prayed for, with effect from
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/711/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
01.10.1988 and the consequential difference of salary (with
revision of pay as applicable) from 08.08.2006 to 30.09.2019 i.e.
the date of superannuation of the petitioner. Needless to add that
consequent retirement benefits like pension, gratuity, leave
encashment etc. which are also founded upon the beneficial
application of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 would
also be calculated by the respondents in letter and spirit of this
judgment and order and the entire package shall be disbursed
within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the present
order.
11. This Court also notes that the petitioner had approached this
Court for the second time because the respondents had not adhered
to the order dated 21.09.2020 passed by this Court by which, the
representation of the original deceased petitioner had to be
decided and "such exercise (sic) shall be completed as
expeditiously as possible, but not later than six weeks from the date
of receipt of the order of this Court." Consequently, the objections
of Mr.H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 to the grant of interest from 01.10.2019 till
the actual implementation of the present order do not stand and
are accordingly, rejected. However, this Court in its discretion
awards the interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 01.10.2019 i.e. from
the day after the original deceased petitioner's superannuation till
the date of actual implementation."
6. The grant of benefits arising from the GR dated 17/10/1988 was
threadbare considered by the Supreme Court between the same parties in
the case of State of Gujarat & Others Vs. P.W.D. Employees Union and
Others [(2013) 12 SCC 417] and subsequently in the case of State of
Gujarat Vs. PWD Employees Union and Others [(2019) 3 SCC 642].
Thus, as per the decision of the Supreme Court, once the daily wager
completes 5, 10 and 15 years of service, he is required to be placed in the
regular pay-scale and thereafter, he is also entitled for pensionary
benefits. The Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is introduced by
the State Government for granting benefits to those daily wagers, who are
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/711/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
completed specific number of years. In the present case, due to illegal
action of the appellants, the workman remained out of service, which was
set aside by the Labour Court; however the Labour Court has not
observed categorically on the continuity of service, he would be entitled
to the same on his reinstatement.
7. Reliance placed upon the judgment dated 24/01/2013 rendered in
SCA No.24629 of 2006, by which the said petition filed by the present
appellants was dismissed by this Court confirming the award cannot be
indirectly apply to the detriment of the workman. The learned Single
Judge, at the relevant time, has dismissed the writ petition only by
observing that since no continuity of service and back wages was granted,
the writ petition was dismissed. However, the bare perusal of the award
and the final direction issued therein clarify that in fact the Labour court
has only denied the back wages and directed the workman to be reinstated
on his original post. There is no whisper by the Labour Court with regard
to either granting or denying the continuity of service. Hence, in view of
the decisions referred to by the learned Single Judge in paragraph No.10
of the impugned judgment, on the similar, issue, the present LPA does
not merit acceptance. Thus, the issue raised in the present appeal is no
more res integra.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the present LPA is rejected. In view of
the rejection of the LPA, the connected Civil Application is also
dismissed.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
sompura / 11
