Gujarat High Court
Ashvinbhai Bhikhabhai Barot vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 6 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9291/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9291 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
ASHVINBHAI BHIKHABHAI BAROT & ORS.
Versus
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/
REPRESTENTATIVES for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DWIJEN JOSHI(8518) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1
MR DP JOSHI(1163) for the Petitioner(s) No. 2,3
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
MR. SIDDHARTH RAMI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 06/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) RULE returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Kirit
Patel as also learned AGP Mr. Siddharth Rami, waive service of
notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respective respondents.
2) Heard learned advocate Mr. D.P.Joshi for the petitioners,
learned advocate Mr. Kirit Patel for learned advocate Mr.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9291/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
H.S.Munshaw for respondent Nos.1 & 3 and learned Asst.
Government Pleader Mr. Siddharth Rami for respondent No.1.
3) With the consent of the learned advocates for the
respective parties, the present writ petition is taken up for final
hearing.
4) The present writ petition is filed under Articles 14, 16, 21
and 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief/s:
"10 (A) This Honourable Court be pleased to admit and
allow this petition.
(B) This Honourable Court be pleased to issue
appropriate writ, order or direction including the writ in
the nature of mandamus and present petitioners be
granted benefit of regular employees as it is granted to
other employees from their original date of employment.
(C) Pending, admission hearing and / or final disposal
of this Special Civil Application present petitioners be
granted benefit of regular employees as it is granted to
other employees from their original date of employment.
(D) his Honourable Court be pleased to grant any other
and further relief/s as may be deemed fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
"E" The Hon'ble Court may be please to grant the
benefit of pension as the petitioner No. 1, 2 & 3 are
having pensionable service as per initial date of
appointment and be further please to grant other
bene4fits of retirement as per regularization of service.
"F" During the pendency and hearing of this petition,
the petitioner no.1 has died on 13/10/2022 and petitioner
No. 3 has retired on 31/12/2049. Hence both the
petitioners may be granted the benefits of pension."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9291/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
5) FACTS OF THE CASE
5.1) The short controversy germane in the present writ
petition about the fact that initial appointment of the original
petitioners with respondent No.1- Corporation was as daily
wagers and due to policy decision of respondent - Corporation,
their services were regularized by Corporation vide its Resolution
dated 30.05.2013, whereby they were considered as regular
employees of respondent - Corporation w.e.f. 01.04.2013. It is
not in dispute that on getting such benefits of regularization,
regular pay-scales received by the respective petitioners until
they retired from the services.
5.2) Thus, only grievance now left according to the case of
the petitioners about not granting pensioner benefits to the
petitioners by respondent - Corporation as same appears to have
been denied on the ground that respective petitioners having not
completed qualifying service to get pensionary benefits.
6) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
6.1) Learned advocate Mr. Joshi appearing for the petitioners
would vehemently submit that all petitioners were initially
appointed in year 1996 on the post of Fitter as Daily wager. It is
submitted that as per policy of respondent- Corporation, on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9291/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
completion of 5 years and 900 days services on such post,
petitioners were entitled to be regularized in service.
Nonetheless, the respondent - Corporation took long time to
grant such benefits to the petitioners, inasmuch as, the services
of the petitioners came to be regularized by giving them
permanent appointment vide Resolution dated 30.05.2013 given
effect from 01.04.2013. So, there is no fault on the part of the
petitioners but due to delay on the part of respondent -
Corporation in not granting benefits of their own policy, resulted
into injustice to the petitioners.
6.2) Learned advocate Mr. Joshi would respectfully submit
that if regularization of serviced of petitioners would be
counted/considered on completion of 5 years and 900 days, all
petitioners are eligible to get pensionary benefits being completed
qualifying service to receive pension, which require to be granted
by the respondent - Corporation by giving effect of regularization
on completion of 5 years and 900 days of their service. It is
submitted that having not granted such benefit to petitioners
respondents violated their fundamental rights to receive pension.
6.3) Learned advocate Mr. Joshi would rely upon the
decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9291/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.
dated 18.10.2019 passed in Special Civil Application
No.20185 of 2018, whereby would contend that services
rendered by the petitioners as daily wagers requires to be
considered while calculating qualifying service for granting
pensionary benefits.
6.4) Lastly, learned advocate Mr. Joshi would draw the
attention of this Court that no specific reply filed by the
respondent - Corporation in regards to non-granting of
pensionary benefits, inasmuch as, amended prayer of writ
petition is not responded by them.
6.5) Making the above submissions, learned advocate Mr.
Joshi would request this Court to allow the present writ petition.
7) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
NOS.1 AND 3.
7.1) Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Kirit Patel for learned
advocate Mr. H.S.Munshaw would submit that none of the
petitioners are entitled for any relief as prayed in the present writ
petition, inasmuch as, all petitioners were initially appointed as
daily wagers and when their services were regularized w.e.f.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9291/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
01.04.2013, an undertaking submitted by each petitioner to the
respondent - Corporation, whereby they have accepted their
regularization of service with effect from 01.04.2013 only.
7.2) Learned advocate would also draw the attention of this
Court to the reply filed by the respondent - Corporation and the
undertaking given by each petitioner, whereby he pointed out
that petitioners have consciously accepted the regular
appointment w.e.f. 01.04.2013. It is further submitted that as
per the undertaking, petitioners agreed that no legal
objections/dispute will be raised by them in future including any
other claim.
7.3) Learned advocate would further submit that once
petitioners have without any objections accepted such regular
appointment, as per policy decision taken by the respondent -
Corporation, after lapse of about 5 years then after, they are not
entitled to raise any grievance including pension by way of filing
present writ petition.
7.4) Making the above submissions, he would request this
Court to reject the present writ petition.
8) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2.
8.1) So far argument of learned AGP is concerned, he would
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9291/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
adopt the arguments so canvassed by the learned advocate for
respondent Nos.1& 3.
9) QUESTION OF LAW
9.1) A short question that falls for my consideration is, as to
whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present
case, period of service of petitioners as daily wagers can be
considered while calculating period of service on the post of
Fitter?, and Whether petitioners are entitled to receive any
pensionary benefits thereby?
ANALYSIS
10) The facts which are observed and submitted during the
course of argument are not in dispute.
10.1) The petitioners initially appointed as daily wagers in the
year 1996 by respondent - Corporation on the post of Fitter.
10.2) Nonetheless, there is nothing on record to show that
such appointment was by any regular mode of employment. It is
also not in dispute that their services were regularized by the
respondent - Corporation with effect from 01.04.2013, having so
passed Resolution dated 30.05.2013. At the time of getting such
regularization benefit from the respondent -Corporation, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9291/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
petitioners have submitted an undertaking which are on record,
submitted along with reply of respondent No.1. The bare look of
such undertaking, clearly indicates that it has been clearly
accepted by the petitioners that they are agreed with terms of
their appointment given on the post of Fitter on regular basis
w.e.f. 01.04.2013 only and they will not raise any grievance in
future including no other benefits will be claimed in this regard.
10.3) Of course, one of the petitioners namely Harishbhai
Maljibhai Parmar, while giving such undertaking, has made an
endorsement that he is giving his consent subject to condition
that he should not get less salary than what he is currently
receiving, except this no other reservation put forward. Its not
even his case that after regularization, his pay reduced.
10.4) Nonetheless, fact remains that all petitioners have
consciously accepted the order of regularization of their services
on the post of Fitter w.e.f. 01.04.2013 only, by not raising any
grievance of not considering their past service renders on post of
Fitter, albeit as daily wager.
11) Thus, in view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, according to my view, petitioners
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9291/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
cannot now raise any such grievance and to claim that
respondent - Corporation requires to consider the period of
service spent by them as daily wagers, for pensionary benefits.
12) As per rule of estoppel and waiver, claim of petitioners
requires to be denied which is appropriately denied by the
respondent - Corporation having not considered the request of
petitioners made by them through their legal notice issued on
06.09.2016.
13) As far as policy of respondent - Corporation is concerned,
whereby, on completion of 5 years and 900 days by daily wager,
their case can be considered for regularization is concerned, in
absence of such policy on record, this Court would not like to
make further comment on it but only observe that on completion
of such period, right of eligible daily wager would accrue,
thereby, their case can be considered for regularization on
completion of such period. Nonetheless, it is for the respondent -
Corporation to consider the case of such daily wager, as per its
policy decision to be taken by the competent Authority. It is not
even remotely suggested by the petitioners that on completion of
the aforesaid period, any claim raised by the petitioners before
the respondent - Corporation as the case may be.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9291/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
14) Moreover, judgment which has been relied upon by the
learned advocate Mr. Joshi for the petitioners in support of his
submission, is not applicable to the case on hand, inasmuch as,
in the cited case, petitioner appears to have been appointed as
ad-hoc, later on, service regularized, whereas, in the case on
hand, indisputably the petitioners appointed as daily wagers.
15) In any case, after perusing the reply and the documents
annexed therewith, I am of the opinion that petitioners are not
entitled to receive any pensionary benefits having not completed
qualifying service to receive such benefits.
16) Thus, with the aforesaid observations, discussion, and
reasons, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The
writ petition bereft of any merit requires to be rejected which is
hereby rejected. Ad-interim relief / interim relief granted earlier,
if any, stands vacated. Rule is discharged. No costs.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT,J)
Lalji Desai
