Gujarat High Court
Ramanbhai Savabhai Vankar vs Deputy Executive Engineer on 27 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7247/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7247 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RAMANBHAI SAVABHAI VANKAR
Versus
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PARESH J BRAHMBHATT(9788) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR UM SHASTRI(830) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 27/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed with following prayers....
"A. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to Admit and Allow ther
petition.
B. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction under
articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India by modifying the
impugned judgment and award dated 13-04-2023 passed by the
Ld. Labour court, Godhara in Reference (T) No. 96 of 20052 and
direct the respondent to pay full back wages and continuity of
services along with benefits of G.R.17. 10. 1988 and also pay all
available benefits to Petitioner.
C. Grant such other and further relief/s with ther Hon'ble
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7247/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances
of the case in the interest of justice."
2. At the outset learned advocate Mr.Shastri has submitted
before this Court that after the impugned award was
passed, recovery application being Recovery (C-1)
Application No.3 of 2023 was filed wherein, settlement
has arrived and the petitioner has received the
settlement amount of Rs.1,25,000/- and has issued the
receipt on 26.07.2023 and on the basis of the said
settlement, withdrawal pursis came to be filed below
Exh.6 by the petitioner before the learned labour court
in the recovery proceedings and therefore, petition is
not required to be entertained as such material facts
were not disclosed before this Court, while filing the
petition.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Brahmbhatt for the petitioner
submitted that even if the petitioner has received the
amount, he would be entitled for the benefit of GR dated
17.10.1988. It is submitted by the learned advocate
Mr.Brahmbhatt that the affidavit was sworn by the
petitioner on 09.08.2023 and thereafter, petition was
presented before this Court on 19.10.2023 thereafter,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7247/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
due to non removal of office objection petition came to
be dismissed which was restored by this Court, vide
order dated 02.05.2025. Learned advocate
Mr.Brahmbhatt says that as the petition was filed prior
to disposal of the recovery application therefore, said
facts were not disclosed before this Court in the memo
of petition.
4. Considering the submissions, it is found from the memo
of the petition that the petitioner has challenged the
order passed by the learned reference court in
Reference (T) No.96 of 2002 dated 13.04.2023 by which
the learned labour court has awarded the reference in
favour of the petitioner by granting lump sum
compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-. In the memo of petition,
petitioner did not disclose with regard to the filing of the
recovery application being Recovery (C-1) Application
No.3 of 2023. It is true that the affirmation of the
petition was made on 09.08.2023, however, before the
said date the petitioner has already received the amount
of compensation by accepting the award on 26.07.2023.
Withdrawal pursis which is referred by the learned
labour court in the order dated 09.09.2023 is filed below
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7247/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
Exh.6 stating that as the amount has been received
pursuant to the award passed by this Court, he did not
want to pursue the proceedings filed under Recovery (C-
1) No.3 of 2023. Petitioner is now claiming the benefit of
GR dated 17.10.1988 which was not the subject matter
before the learned labour court hence this Court is of
the view that if the petitioner is claiming the said
benefits then proper adjudication is required to be done
by the learned labour court, however, this court would
not be able to examine the claim of the petitioner for
getting the benefit under 17.10.1988 as the same is
required to be adjudicated after leading the evidence.
5. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that as the
petitioner has accepted the amount towards lump sum
compensation which was awarded by the learned labour
court and same was not disclosed in the memo of
petition, this petition does not require to be entertained.
Hence, the petition is dismissed.
6. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
