Gujarat High Court
Executive Engineer vs Laljibhai Nanjibhai Zapadia on 2 May, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/941/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 941 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6821 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 941 of 2021
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 168 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9285 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2024 In R/LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL NO. 168 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9285 of 2019
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 180 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16525 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2024 In R/LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL NO. 180 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16525 of 2018
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 226 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 131 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2024 In R/LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL NO. 226 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 131 of 2019
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 324 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14049 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2024 In R/LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL NO. 324 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14049 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 481 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 139 of 2019
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Wed May 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 07 22:41:26 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/941/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2024 In R/LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL NO. 481 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 139 of 2019
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 546 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1403 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2024 In R/LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL NO. 546 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1403 of 2019
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1151 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14041 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2024 In R/LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL NO. 1151 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14041 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ANR.
Versus
LALJIBHAI NANJIBHAI ZAPADIA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MS FORAM TRIVEDI AGP - ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT
PLEADER/PP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR NILESH M SHAH(780) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Wed May 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed May 07 22:41:26 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/941/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 02/05/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA)
[1] Since the issues involved in all the captioned Letters
Patent Appeals are identical and similar, with the consent of
learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, appeals are
taken up for final hearing and are being disposed of by this
common oral judgment. For the sake of convenience, R/Letters
Patent Appeal No.941 of 2021 is treated as lead matter.
[2] Present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 8 th January 2019
passed by the learned Single Judge in R/Special Civil Application
No.6821 of 2018, whereby, the learned Single Judge has directed
the appellants herein to give benefit of the Resolution dated 17 th
October1988 with effect from 1st April 1989 till 31st October 2010.
Out of this period, the period from 1 st April 1989 to 25th February
1999 was directed to be counted notionally for the purpose of
extension of continuous benefits and the period from 26 th February
1999 to 31st February 2010 was directed to be counted for giving
actual benefits with difference of salary. The appellants herein are
further directed to grant retirement benefits to the respondents
herein - original petitioners including pension, gratuity, leave
encashment. The arrears were directed to be paid within a period
of eight weeks and if the payment is not made within a period of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/941/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
eight weeks, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from
18th August 2017. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment read thus:-
"6. Decision of this Court in Executive Engineer, Panchayat v.
Samudabhai Jyotibhai Bhedi [2017 (4) GLR 2952] as well as
another decision also of the Division Bench in State of Gujarat v.
Ranabhai Ajmalbhai Harijan since deceased through legal heirs
being Letters Patent Appeal No.1518 of 2017 decided on 10th
April, 2018, comes to the help of the petitioner.
7. As a result of the above discussion, petition deserves to be
allowed in terms of prayer in paragraph 20(B) and 20(C). The
respondents are directed to give benefit of Resolution dated 17th
October, 1988 with effect from 01st April, 1989 till 31st October,
2010. Out of this period, the period from 01st April, 1989 to 25th
February, 1999 shall be counted notionally for the purpose of
extension of continuous benefits and the period from 26th
February, 1999 to 31st February, 2010 shall be counted for giving
actual benefits with difference of salary. The respondents are
further directed to grant retirement benefits to the petitioner
including the pension, gratuity, leave encashment on the above
basis and on the basis of completion of 27 years of service. All the
dues arising by virtue of this order including the arrears shall be
paid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of writ of this order. If the payment is not made within
the aforesaid time stipulated, it shall carry interest at the rate of 6%
from 18th August, 2017 which is the date when the identically
placed employee Pankhuben Punjabhai was treated for granting the
benefit and the order was passed in her favour."
[3] Perceptibly, following 14 similarly situated employees,
had approached this Court by filing various writ petitions. The issue
in some of the matters, has travelled before the Division Bench and
in some, before the Apex Court. The issue, is almost settled in
favour of the employees.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/941/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
Sr. No. Applicants' Name
1 Tidiben Panchabhai Gagani
2 Thakarshibhai Amarshibhai
3 Late Bachubhai Amarshibhai
4 Devjibhai Punjabhai Chavda
5 Sarvaiya Bhalabhai Jeshingbhai and others
6 Late Lavjibhai Bhudarbhai Parghi
7 Chikabhai Rupabhai Jhapadiya
8 Jagabhai Chhaganbhai Parmar
9 Hamirbhai Meghabhai Gohil
10 Late Laljibhai Nanjibhai Zapadia
11 Late Kashirambhai Nanjibhai Zapadia
12 Late Kanjibhai Lavjibhai Rathod
13 Danabhai Kalabhai Parmar
14 Parvatiben Khimjibhai Zapadia
[4] As aforestated, the above-referred employees, have
preferred writ petitions which have been allowed in their favour.
The order of the learned single Judge has been unsuccessfully
challenged before the Division Bench and before the Apex Court.
So far as the employees at sr. nos.7, 11 and 12, i.e. Chikabhai
Rupabhai Zapadia, Late Kashirambhai Nanjibhai Zapadia and Late
Kanjibhai Lavjibhai Rathod are concerned, it is not in dispute that
the judgment of the learned single Judge has been accepted by the
State Government and no appeals have been preferred. So far as
employee at sr.no.14 is concerned, Parvatiben Khimjibhai Zapadia
Letters Patent Appeal no.972 of 2020 was preferred and the
Division Bench, has passed the following order:-
"It is not in dispute that in a similar case between Laljibhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/941/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
Nanjibhai Zapadia vs. State of Gujarat and others the issue has
attained finality by way of conclusion of Special Civil Application
No.6821 of 2018 vide order dated 08.01.2019.
Once the said judgment attained finality, the learned Single
Judge was right in extending benefits as contained in the judgment
impugned in the appeal. Further, similarly situated other
employees have been extended such benefits.
We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the
learned Single Judge. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly
dismissed. Consequently, connected Civil Application stands
disposed of."
[5] Similarly in the case of employee at sr.no.13, i.e.
Danabhai Kalabhai Parmar and also in the case of Parvatiben
Khimjibhai Zapadia, against the decision of the Division Bench of
this Court in Letters Patent Appeals, Special Leave to Appeal (C)
nos.2116 of 2022 and other allied matters are preferred before the
Apex Court. The Apex Court, on 22 nd January, 2024 has passed the
following order:-
"After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the
issue as decided regarding reinstatement and continuity, we find no
ground to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the High
Court. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending interlocutory application(s), is/are disposed of."
[6] So far as employee at sr.no.9, i.e. Hamirbhai
Meghabhai Gohil is concerned, R/Letters Patent Appeal no.508 of
2022 is preferred by the Executive Engineer and another, which
was rejected by this Court vide judgment dated 03 rd February, 2025
wherein the Division Bench in paragraphs, 3, 3.1, 4 and 5 has held
thus:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/941/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
"3. What is apparent from the conspectus of facts is that the only
ground on which the respondent was denied the benefit of the
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 from his initial date of
appointment was that the Labour Court vide award dated
29.03.2007 while examining the case of the present petitioner and
the co-employee namely Danabhai Kalabhai in Reference (LCS)
No.184 of 2000 had directed the respondent authorities to
reinstate
him on his original post but failed to record the direction with
regard to continuity of service.
3.1 The co-employee Shri Danabhai Kalabhai had approached
this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.18154 of 2015
claiming the same relief as claimed by the respondent herein and
the said benefits were conferred upon him. Thereafter, the
appellant had approached the Division Bench of this court by way
of Letters Patent Appeal No. 485 of 2017 against the order passed
in Special Civil Application No.18154 of 2015 in the case of the co-
employee. The co-ordinate bench of this court confirmed the
findings of the learned Single Judge and rejected the appeal.
4. Today when the appeal is taken up for hearing, Mr. Nilesh
Shah, learned advocate for the respondent workman points out
that the decision of the co-ordinate bench rendered in Letters
Patent Appeal No. 485 of 2017 in the case of the co-employee of
the respondent workman was challenged by way of an SLP before
the Apex Court. The Apex Court vide order dated 22.01.2024
dismissed the appeal and confirmed the findings of the Division
Bench.
5. Thus, the findings as well as the directions issued by this
court in case of the co-employee who was also a party to the
original reference filed by the respondent workman have become
final and therefore the same shall govern the case of the present
respondent as well. We therefore find that there is no merit in the
appeal so as to deny the benefits to the respondent workman
which already have been given to said Shri Danabhai Kalabhai."
[7] We have heard learned advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw for
the appellants herein, learned advocate Mr. Nilesh Shah for the
respondents herein - original petitioners and learned Assistant
Government Pleader Ms. Foram Trivedi for the respondent - State
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/941/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
of Gujarat.
[8] At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Nilesh Shah for the
respondents - original petitioners has submitted that the Hon'ble
Apex Court has confirmed the decisions of the learned single Judge
as well as the Division Bench of this Court in connection with the
similarly situated employees and thereby, present respondents -
original petitioners being identically and similarly situated, which
aspect, is not in dispute and hence, the judgment of the learned
single Judge, does not warrant interference. Moreover, in majority
of the cases, the State Government has implemented and acted
upon the judgment and nothing further survives to be done. Mr
H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate, Ms Sejal Mandavia, learned
advocate for the appellants in the respective appeals, could not
dispute the above-referred orders passed and the fact that the
employees concerned in the captioned group, are not similarly
situated.
[9] Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case, in our considered opinion, once the judgments
concerning to the similarly situated employees as that of the
present respondents - original petitioners, attained finality, in that
event, in absence of any other independent or distinguishing
feature pointed out, the judgment of the learned single Judge, does
not warrant interference. Rather, it is conceded by the learned
advocates for the appellants that the issue, is now settled upto to
the Apex Court. Thus, present appeals does not deserved to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/941/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
entertained and are hereby, dismissed and are accordingly
dismissed. No order as to costs.
[10] Consequently, connected Civil Applications stands
disposed of.
[11] The appellants are directed to implement the decision
of the learned Single Judge in its letter and spirit. Arrears be paid
to the concerned employees within a period of four weeks' from
today.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
CHANDRESH
