Prakashkumar Kantilal Shrimali vs State Of Gujarat Through Secretary
2025 Latest Caselaw 7743 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Prakashkumar Kantilal Shrimali vs State Of Gujarat Through Secretary on 10 November, 2025

                                                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




                           C/SCA/8049/2020                                          JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025

                                                                                                                     undefined




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8049 of 2020

                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

                      =============================================

                                  Approved for Reporting                           Yes          No
                                                                                                  √
                      =============================================
                                      PRAKASHKUMAR KANTILAL SHRIMALI
                                                    Versus
                                 STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS.
                      =============================================
                      Appearance:
                      MS NEHA LADHANI FOR MR VICKY B MEHTA(5422) for Petitioner(s) No. 1
                      DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 7
                      MR SIDDHARTH RAMI, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s)
                      No. 1,3
                      MR KIRIT R PATEL FOR MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for Respondent(s) No. 4
                      NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 7
                      NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,5,6
                      =============================================

                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

                                                          Date : 10/11/2025
                                                          ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Siddharth Rami waives service of notice of rule for respondents Nos.1, 2, 3 and 7. Learned advocate Mr.Kirit Patel, appearing for learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw, waives service of notice of rule for respondent Nos.4 to 6.

2. With the consent of the parties, the present writ application is taken up for hearing.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8049/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025

undefined

3. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief :

"(a) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus by holding that the impugned order of termination dated 15.02.2020 passed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 is bad, illegal, arbitrary and amounts to overreaching the process of Court and further be pleased to quash and set aside the said order of termination dated 15.02.2020 passed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 and further be pleased to reinstate the petitioner on his original post with the respondent No.6 with all benefits including backwages;

(b) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus by holding that the impugned order of termination dated 15.02.2020 passed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 amounts to deliberately flouting with the order dated 24.10.2019 passed by this Honourable Court in Special Civil Application No.19248 of 2019 preferred by the Union on behalf of its members wherein the petitioner is also a member of Patan District and further be pleased to quash and set aside the order of termination dated 15.02.2020 issued by respondent Nos.5 and 6 and further be pleased to reinstate the petitioner on his original post with the respondent No.6 with all benefits including backwages;

(c) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction by holding that the action of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in passing the order of termination dated 15.02.2020 amounts to contempt of the order dated 24.10.2019 passed by this Honourable Court in Special Civil Application No.19248 of 2019 and further be pleased to initiate appropriate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act against the responsible officer of respondent Nos.5 and 6;

(d) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay further operation and implementation of the impugned order of termination dated 15.02.2020 passed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on his original post with all benefits including salary;

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8049/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025

undefined

(e) Grant such other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."

4. Before adverting to the issue germane in the matter, it is apposite to refer to some previous orders passed in this matter on dated 13.06.2025, 30.06.2025 and 01.09.2025, which read as under:

"ORDER DATED 13.06.2025

1. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

2. It is pointed out by learned advocate Ms.Ladhani for the petitioner that on 24.10.2019, this Court had passed order in Special Civil Application No.19248 of 2019 wherein the answering respondent no.4 is also party, granting status-quo regarding the service conditions of the petitioner during the pendency of the said petition and that the copy of the said order was also served to the answering respondent no.4. Even then, the answering respondent no.4 has passed the order dated 15.2.2020 which is impugned in the present petition, without approaching this Court for necessary modification, and therefore the prayer is also made to the effect that the said order passed by the authority amount to deliberately flouting with the order dated 24.10.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.19248 of 2019.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt for Mr. Munshaw has tendered affidavit-in-reply and has contended that gross misconduct and abuse of power was found as the petitioner was involved in issuance of 137 bogus cards and therefore, it was necessary to take disciplinary action in the interest of administration of the benevolent scheme.

4. Be that as it may, when the Court has passed an order granting status-quo and not to change the service condition and that interim relief granted in that petition is still operating, it is not proper on the part of the respondent authority to pass such further order which is under challenge before this Court. Prima facie, it transpires that the authority has not complied with the order passed by this Court in its true letter and spirit. It is required to be noted that the sanctity of the order passed by this Court should be maintained by the concerned person/authority as the Courts

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8049/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025

undefined

are not passing orders for fun and the authorities are not entitled to take highhanded approach in such circumstances. It was open for the authority, in facts and circumstances of the present case, to approach this Court by filing appropriate application in Special Civil Application no.19248 of 2019 for appropriate modification in the impugned order dated 15.2.2020, which was not admittedly done in the present case.

5. Therefore, the person Dr. Alpesh S Salvi, who has filed the affidavit on behalf of respondent no.4, District Health Mission Director, District Health Society and Chief District Health Officer, Patan District Panchayat, Patan shall remain personally present on 30.6.2025, with necessary explanation, before this Court.

ORDER DATED 30.06.2025 :

Pursuant to the order dated 13.06.2025 passed by this Court, Dr. Alpesh S. Salvi from respondent No.4 is personally present before this Court today and he has tendered unconditional apology. He has further submitted that it was not a deliberate attempt on his part to not complying with the order passed by this Court as indicated in the earlier order, but this order is not brought to his notice by the sub-ordinate officer at the relevant point of time. Though there is no affidavit to this effect, but submissions has been made by learned advocate Mr. Munshaw after receiving instructions from Dr. Alpesh S. Salvi.

With a view to see that what action has been taken pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, re-list the matter on 08.07.2025.

Dr. Alpesh S. Salvi as well as his successor shall file detailed affidavit about the same to that aforesaid effect, in view of earlier order dated 13.06.2025 passed by this Court and today's order on or before the next date. If the affidavit is filed by them, the presence of Dr. Alpesh S. Salvi will not require and is dispensed with on the next date of hearing.

ORDER DATED 01.09.2025 :

1. Pursuant to the order dated 13.06.2025 passed by this Court, Dr. Alpesh S. Salvi has filed affidavit on 25.06.2025.

Thereafter, the Court has passed further order on 30.06.2025 and accordingly, the affidavit is filed on 04.07.2025 by Dr.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8049/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025

undefined

Vishnubhai Ambalal Patel.

2. From the tenor of both the affidavits, it transpires that though there is internal communication made by the concerned officer in compliance of the order passed by this Court pursuant to the present petitioner in separate proceeding, however, from the tenor of the affidavit-in-reply, the facts are described regarding communication, but it lacks any explanation regarding what actions are taking against the erring person as well as what actions are taken pursuant to the compliance of the order passed in separate proceeding pursuant to the present petitioner.

3. Let the copy of this order as well as the copy of earlier orders passed in the present matter be forwarded to the Additional Director, Public Health and Health Department, Gandhinagar to look into the matter and to do needful at his/her end in the matter.

4. Considering the totality of the facts of the present case, Additional Director, Public Health and Health Department, Gandhinagar may take necessary action to redress the grievance of the petitioner.

5. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, with a view to assist the Court in appropriate manner, Additional Director, Public Health and Health Department, Gandhinagar is required to be added as party respondent in the present matter. Hence, the petitioner shall carry out amendment accordingly by adding Addl. Director, Public Health and Health Department, Gandhinagar as party respondent No.7 to the present petition.

6. The Registry shall sent the entire copy of the petition along with the orders passed by this Court so that the same can be verified and appropriate action can be taken forthwith in the matter.

7. Re-list the matter for further consideration on 23.09.2025. Registry to do needful immediately.

8. The amendment shall be carried out within two days from today."

(emphasis supplied)

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8049/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025

undefined

FACTS OF THE CASE :

5. Now, adverting to the facts of the case, it appears that pursuant to the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 24.10.2019, in Special Civil Application No.19248 of 2019, filed by the National Health Mission Contractual Employee Mandal, Gujarat, (herein after referred as "Mandal"), with whom the present petitioner appears to be its member, approached this Court seeking relief as regards regularization of services of the members of the petitioner Mandal. After considering the fact that in a similarly situated writ petition filed by the very Mandal for its other members than petitioner herein, wherein the Single Judge of this Court (Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.V.Anjaria, his lordship then was), granted order of status-quo in regards to maintain the status-quo of the service condition of the petitioner concern till pendency of writ petition, similar benefit/order of status-

quo passed by his lordship vide its order dated 24.10.2019 in Special Civil Application No.19248 of 2019, thus, respondents are directed to maintain status-quo in regards to the service conditions of the petitioner herein being member of the Mandal during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition. It is not in dispute that aforesaid writ petition still pending for its adjudication.

5.1 The petitioner herein when terminated from his service at that time worked with respondent No.6 herein as an Accountant-cum-Computer Data Operator on a contractual basis, joined services on 18.09.2012, which was continued

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8049/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025

undefined

from time to time thereby, he worked at Primary Health Center, Balisana. Such contract was lastly extended for a period from 27.01.2020 to 26.12.2020. It further appears that in the midst of such period, service of the petitioner terminated by respondent No.6 vide its order dated 15.02.2020, on getting instructions from respondent No.5. The basis of the termination of service of the petitioner for his misconduct found out by the competent authority, which is germane from bare reading of his said termination order and other communications exchanged between the parties.

5.2 In fact, the petitioner, in his reply dated 30.11.2019, addressing to respondent No.5 admitted the mistake committed by him, although stated that such mistake was bonafide committed by him as to help the beneficiary of the Aayushman Scheme, whereby 137 beneficiary added in one family and accordingly issued 137 such cards from his ID. As such, the authority concerned found, having so observed in its letter dated 06.12.2019, that from the petitioner's ID, that too only in one beneficiary account, 137 beneficiaries were added, which is found to be serious misconduct, ultimately not found satisfactory with reply of petitioner, passed an order of terminating his contractual service.

5.3 By way of this present petition, the petitioner having challenged such termination of him though on several grounds but during course of argument, learned advocate for petitioner confined such challenge to only one ground that despite there is an order of status-quo granted by this Court,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8049/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025

undefined

vide its order dated 24.10.2019 in Special Civil Application No.19248 of 2019, the service of the petitioner is illegally terminated.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER :

6. Learned advocate Ms.Neha Ladhani would humbly submit that in view of the undisputed fact that when the service of the petitioner terminated, an order of status-quo was in operation as aforesaid, the impugned order dated 15.02.2020 cannot allow to stand for a day and requires to be quashed and set aside as passed in flagrant violation of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid matter.

6.1 Learned advocate Ms. Ladhani would submit that respondents have not approached the learned single judge of this Court for modification/vacation of an order of status-quo passed on 24.10.2019 in passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.19248 of 2019, then, impugned order could not have been passed, as such, it is ex-facie illegal. It is submitted that as on date, there is no modification in the order of status-quo qua petitioner, having not passed any such order, respondents could not have terminated the service of petitioner for any reasons.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS :

7. Per contra, learned advocates appearing for the respondents would candid in their submissions that it is true that the order impugned in the present petition passed

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8049/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025

undefined

unnoticing the order dated 24.10.2019 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.19248 of 2019, whereby the service of the petitioner requires to be maintained during the pendency of such petition. At the same time, it is pointed out by learned advocates for respondents that as per the subsequent order which was passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, clarifying/modifying such order of status-quo, passed in Civil Application (for Clarification) No.1 of 2020 in Special Civil Application No.11066 of 2019, passed on 27.10.2020, now the agitation of petitioner assailing the impugned order on aforesaid ground would not survive.

7.1 Learned advocates appearing for the respondents would submit that in view of the clarification/modification order passed by this Court as aforesaid, even though the impugned order passed prior to such clarification, this Court may not disturb and interfere with the impugned order of dismissal, inasmuch as, the petitioner having found involved into the serious misconduct per se, having so admitted by him in his reply, such order of dismissal, that too inflicted upon contractual employee, may not be disturbed on mere technical violation i.e. violation of this Court order.

7.2 Lastly, learned counsels appearing for the respondents respectfully submit that, if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the impugned order would not stand in view of the order of status-quo passed by this Court as aforesaid, liberty may be given to the respondent to pass a fresh order as now, such order of status-quo, according to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8049/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025

undefined

respondents, would not survive, having so clarified/modified as aforesaid.

ANALYSIS

8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties, the fact emerges that the petitioner, being a member of the Mandal, having so filed Special Civil Application No.19248 of 2019 through it, wherein as referred herein above, the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 24.10.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.19248 of 2019, directed the respondents to maintain status-quo as regards the service condition of the petitioner i.e. members of the petitioner Mandal, during the pendency of the petition. It is not in dispute that as on date also, the aforesaid petition is pending and there is no modification/clarification of the order of status quo as sought by the respondents in the very same petition.

9. Nevertheless, there are more than one writ petitions filed by the aforesaid Mandal, apart from Special Civil Application No.19248 of 2019. It is reported by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, under instructions, that around 23 to 25 such type of petitions being filed by the very Mandal to cover its respective members who joined the Mandal one after another.

10. Be that as it may, it is brought to the notice of this Court that, vide order dated 27.10.2020, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court (Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.V.Anjaria,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8049/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025

undefined

his lordship then was) in Civil Application for Clarification No.1 of 2020 in Special Civil Application No.11066 of 2019, whereby the order of status quo granted in favour of the members of the aforesaid Mandal stands clarified/modified, albeit in aforesaid writ petition, by observing thus:

"2. Applicant-Mission Director, District Health Mission, Mehsana, has prayed to modify the interim relief granted in favour of respondent No.1-original petitioner as per order dated 27th June, 2019 in the main petition. It is prayed to permit the applicant to take necessary administrative actions and not to renew the contractual appointment of one Dipakkumar Ranchodlal Patel, member of respondent No.1 Employee Mandal.

5. The case put-forth in the present Civil Application cannot be discountenanced. If any of the employees of the original petitioner Mandal are found liable to be subjected to disciplinary action, then such action and measure should be permitted to be taken by the employer. The order of status quo regarding service conditions passed as ad-interim relief, cannot operate as bar. Therefore, the ad-interim relief granted in the present petition has to be clarified and the order dated 27th June, 2019 has to be modified.

6. Accordingly, ad-interim order dated 27th June, 2019 directing to maintain status quo regarding service conditions of the members of the petitioner Mandal is hereby modified by clarifying that the order of status quo shall not preclude and prevent the applicant- respondent employer to take out the disciplinary measures against any of the employees, including the said Mr.Dipakkumar Ranchodlal Patel, if such employee or said Mr.Patel is found to have committed any misconduct or irregularity liable to be subjected to disciplinary or penal action. It is therefore observed and clarified that applicant-respondent employer shall be entitled to undertake the assessment of the performance of the employees who are enjoying the order of status quo for their services as above. Any penal action is contemplated against any of the employees, the same shall be in accordance with law by following the procedure in law."

(emphasis supplied)

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8049/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025

undefined

11. It appears that the aforesaid order passed by this Court in the application filed by respondent No.4 - Mission Director, District Health Mission, Mehsana, seeking leave of the Court to initiate departmental action against one of such erring member of the aforesaid Mandal.

12. A bare reading of the aforesaid observation/clarification issued by this Court would clearly indicate that under the guise of an order of status-quo, thereby the service condition of petitioner/its members not be disturbed, cannot operate as bar to take appropriate disciplinary action against erring members, in appropriate cases by following the procedure in law. It further appears from bare reading of paragraph 6 of the aforesaid order that this Court has already clarified about the order of status-quo granted in favour of members of the petitioner Mandal to the extent that the order of status-quo shall not preclude and prevent the respondent- employer to take out disciplinary measures against any of the employees, if such employee is found to have committed misconduct or irregularity liable to be subjected to disciplinary/penal action, albeit in accordance with law.

13. As can be seen from the aforesaid undisputed fact emerges from the record of the case, the impugned order passed neither approaching this Court seeking modification/clarification of its order dated 24.10.2019 passed in Special Application No.19248 of 2019, wherein the petitioner being a member of the aforesaid Mandal nor passed

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8049/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025

undefined

subsequent to order dated 27.10.2020 passed in the aforesaid Civil Application filed seeking modification/clarification, although filed only in one of the cognate petition.

14. In light of the aforesaid, the impugned order is found to be passed in violation of the order of status-quo passed by this Court as regards to maintain service condition of petition as aforesaid, thus, requires to be interfered with by this Court only on this ground, which I do so.

15. At the same time, it is always open for the respondent authority, including respondent Nos. 4 to 6, to approach this Court by way of any Civil Application for modification/clarification in Special Civil Application No.19248 of 2019, if so required/advised. Otherwise, if the respondents feel so that in view of the clarification given by this Court, vide its order dated 25.10.2020 in Civil Application (for clarification) No.1 of 2020 in Special Civil Application No.11066 of 2019, it can still pass a fresh order in the case of petitioner, it would open for the respondents to do so subject to the scrutiny by this Court, as and when called for.

CONCLUSION :

15. In view of the aforesaid observation, discussion, and reasons, the impugned order dated 15.02.2020 passed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 respectively at Annexures-'K' and 'L' is hereby quashed and set aside. The liberty reserve in favour of the respondents concerned to pass a fresh order imposing

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8049/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025

undefined

any penalty against the petitioner, albeit in accordance with law, as discussed above.

15.1 Consequently, the petitioner is required to be reinstated on his original post as the impugned order of dismissal passed against him is quashed and set aside and as such, when terminated, the contractual service period of petitioner was not over i.e. Termination dated 15.02.2020, whereas contractual period ends on 26.12.2020.

16. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and having found the impugned order passed in technical breach of the order passed by this Court on 24.10.2019 in Special Application No.19248 of 2019, and also when order for reinstatement of petitioner on his original post being contractual employee as referred hereinabove, the claim of back-wages is hereby denied. More so, back wages not entitled to be received by petitioner on premise of "No Work No Pay".

17. Having considered the explanation put forward by the respondents in its last few affidavits dated 25.06.2025/03.07.2025/04.07.2025 filed on the record, it born out from it that the impugned order passed and implemented by concern officials i.e. Respondent No.5 & 6 inadvertently and no malafide/malice proved on record by the petitioner.

Thus, in view of what is discussed herein above, no case made out for initiating any contempt proceedings against the officials of the respondents concerned. Rather, this Court is

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/8049/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025

undefined

fully satisfied with the explanations submitted by concern official and no reason to take any different view than above.

18. In view of the foregoing conclusion, the present writ petition is hereby partly-allowed, to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute, accordingly. No order as to costs.

(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J) GAURAV J THAKER