Gujarat High Court
Kaluben Arjanbhai Parmar(Deceased) vs State Of Gujarat on 11 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16526/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16526 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT Sd/-
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
=============================================
KALUBEN ARJANBHAI PARMAR(DECEASED) & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/
REPRESTENTATIVES for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NILESH M SHAH(780) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,4
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 11/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.
Kirit Patel for learned advocate Mr. H.S.Munshaw for
respondent Nos.2 and 3 as also learned AGP Ms. Forum Shah
for respondent Nos.1 & 4, waive service of notice of rule for
respective respondents.
2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16526/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
respective parties, the present matter is taken up for hearing.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nilesh Shah for the
petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Kirit Patel for learned
advocate Mr. H.S.Munshaw for respondent Nos.2 and 3 as
also learned AGP Ms. Forum Shah for respondent Nos.1 & 4,
at length.
4. The present writ petition is filed under Articles 14,
16 and 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following
reliefs;
"(A) to issue writ of certiorari and / or any other writ or writs or orders or
directions.
(20-AA) to quash and set aside order dt.21-04-15, Ann- I passed by
Respondent No.3 to the extent of not granting benefit of Resolution dt.17-
10-88, Ann-H from 01-01-90 and to the extent of stating appointment date
as 16-03-10 and to direct the Respondents to correct appointment date of the
Petitioner as 1985 in the service book of the Petitioner and all other records
of the Respondents.
(B) to direct the Respondents to give the benefit of Resolution dt. 17-10-88,
Ann-H to the Petitioner with effect from 01-01-90 notionally up to 30.05.06
and further be pleased to direct the Respondents to give difference of salary
from 01-06-06 to 28-02-17
(C) to direct the Respondents to grant retirement benefits including pension,
gratuity and leave encashment to the Petitioner on the basis of 32 years
continuous service of the Petitioner with 12% interest from 01-03-17 till its
actual implementation.
(D) During the pendency of this petition by way of interim relief to direct the
Respondents to consider the notice of the Petitioner, Annexure-F for giving
benefit of Resolution dt.17-10-88, Annexure-H from 01-01-90.
(E) to grant any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the
interest of justice.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16526/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
(F) to allow this petition with costs."
5. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Shah appearing
for the petitioner would state that issue germane in the
matter is squarely covered by the decision dated 31.01.2022
of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Special Civil
Application No.131 of 2019 (in the case of Thakarshibhai
amarshibhai Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.) with
Special Civil Application No.1403 of 2019, confirmed by the
Division Bench vide its judgment and order dated 02.05.2025
passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.226 of 2022 and others
allied matters, whereby, similarly situated persons like the
petitioner, given benefits, as prayed in this present petition.
6. Since the aforesaid facts and the judgments / orders
passed by the Coordinate Bench, confirmed by the Division
Bench, are not disputed by the learned advocates appearing
for the respondents, it needs not to discuss in detail the facts,
when this Court also incline to pass similar such judgment /
order in this matter, but only few facts require to be observed,
which are as follows;
6.1. The petitioner was appointed as daily wager with
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16526/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
respondent No.3 in the year 1985, whose services were
terminated abruptly by respondent No.3 along with others on
27.12.1990. So, petitioner along with others raised Industrial
Dispute being Reference Case (LCS) No.73 of 1994, which
came to be decided by the Labour Court, Surendranagar in
favour of petitioner, vide its judgment and award dated
30.05.2006, whereby petitioner and other similarly situated
have been ordered to reinstate them in their respective
services.
6.2. The aforesaid judgment and award passed by the
Labour Court came to be challenged by the respondent
concerned before this Court by way of Special Civil
Application Nos.16424 of 2007 and 30390 of 2007. It appears
from the record that such judgment / award is confirmed up to
Division Bench of this Court, having dismissed the Letters
Patent Appeal Nos. 2012 of 2009 & 2018 of 2009, vide its
judgment and order dated 22.12.2009.
6.3. The petitioner having not granted the benefits as
per the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the Labour
Court, inasmuch as, not granted wages from the date of award
till her actual reinstatement, then preferred a writ petition
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16526/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
being Special Civil Application No.920 of 2011, which also
came to be allowed in favour of the petitioner and ors., by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order
dated 23.03.2011, in the said petition.
6.4. It further appears that previous service rendered
by the petitioner was not taken into account when reinstated
in the service, by way of impugned communication dated
21.04.2015, petitioner along with others treated to have been
in service only from 16.03.2010 i.e. when actually reinstated.
This impugned decision/action of respondents challenged by
the respective parties along with the petitioner herein, as
according to them, the same not passed in consonance with
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.
6.5. As observed hereinabove, in case of other
employees who also reinstated in the service as per the
aforesaid judgment and award passed by the Labour Court,
their respective writ petitions being Special Civil Application
No.131 of 2019 and Special Civil Application No.1403 of 2019,
came to be allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 31.01.2022 and so also, confirmed by the
Division Bench while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16526/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
No.226 of 2022 & Letters Patent Appeal No.546 of 2022 and
others allied matters respectively, vide its judgment and order
dated 02.05.2025.
6.6. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgments / orders
passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, confirmed by the Division
Bench, all the benefits emanating from G.R. dated 17.10.1988
given to other similarly situated persons, requires to be given
to petitioner as well.
7. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Shah pointed out
that other similar such orders passed by the Co-ordinate
Bench / Division Bench of this Court and also confirmed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, which are as follows;
i. Special Civil Application No.18154 of 2015, decision
dated 22/12/2016, confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal
No.485 of 2017 dated 20/07/2021, also confirmed in
SLP (C) No.2116 of 2022, dismissing the SLP vide
order dated 22.01.2024;
ii. Special Civil Application Nos.20894 of 2017 & 21570
of 2017, decided on 06.03.2020, confirmed in Letters
Patent Appeal No.663 of 2020 in Special Civil
Application No.20894 of 2017 vide order dated
06.02.2024 and confirmed on 13.02.2024 in Letters
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16526/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
Patent Appeal No.722 of 2020 in Special Civil
Application No.21570 of 2017;
iii. Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in
(2002) 9 SCC 492;
iv. Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao Vs. Kosan Industries
(P) Ltd., rendered in Civil Appeal Nos.201-202 of 2020
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.30469-30470 of 2015),
reported in AIR 2020 SC 1776.
8. By placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgments /
orders passed by this Court, confirmed up to the Hon'ble Apex
Court and other two decisions in the case of Gurpreet Singh
(supra) and Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao (supra), Mr.
Shah would respectfully submit that as per the settled legal
position of law, when Labour Court granted relief of
reinstating the applicant / petitioner, even if not specifically
observed about the continuity of service of her service, it is
deemed to have been granted, thus, it cannot be ignored by
employer when reinstated petitioner.
8.1. It is respectfully submitted that even though
Labour Court has not in clear terms observed in its judgment /
award that reinstatement of petitioner with continuity of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16526/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
service, as per the aforesaid pronouncement of law by highest
Court of India, it requires to be considered by the
respondents, inasmuch as, when there is an award of
reinstatement by the Labour Court, such award has to be
construed to be an award granting continuity of service unless
otherwise expressly denied.
9. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Kirit Patel for
learned advocate Mr. H.S.Munshaw for respondent Nos.2 & 3
so also learned Asst. Government Pleader Ms. Forum Shah for
respondent Nos.1 & 4, though placed reliance upon the
judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this
Court dated 12.07.2016 passed in Letters Patent Appeal
No.492 of 2016 in R/ Special Civil Application No.20577 of
2015, are unable to countenance the submissions made by the
learned advocate Mr. Shah for the petitioner.
10. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and after going through all the aforementioned cited
judgments / orders passed by this Court and so also, by
Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear like a day that whenever there
is an award passed by the Labour Court, whereby services of
labourer concerned is ordered to be reinstated without
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16526/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
expressing anything about his/her continuity of service, unless
it is expressly denied by Labour Court, continuity of service is
deemed to have been granted in such award. Thus, in view of
aforesaid pronouncement of law, respondents require to
consider continuity of service of petitioner herein though not
expressed observed by Labour Court in its aforesaid award,
thereby requires to grant benefits to the petitioner / applicant
concerned.
11. It is not in dispute that case of the petitioner is so
similar and governed by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in the case of Thakarshibhai Amarshibhai
Chauhan (supra), which came to be confirmed by the
Division Bench while dismissing the R/Letters Patent Appeal
No.226 of 2022 and allied matters, on 02.05.2025, thus, there
is no reason to take departure from such orders / judgments
which otherwise binding to this Court.
12. In view of the foregoing observations and reasons, the
present writ petition requires to be allowed, which is hereby
allowed.
12.1. Consequently, the impugned communication dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16526/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
21.04.2015 passed by respondent No.3 to the extent of not
granting benefits to petitioner of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 from
1.1.1990 and to the extent of stating her appointment w.e.f.
from dated 16.03.2010 is hereby quashed and set aside by
holding that the same is arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India and so also passed contrary to law laid
down by this Court / Hon'ble Apex Court as aforesaid.
12.2. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to give
all the consequential benefits of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 to the
petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1990 notionally up to 30.05.2006 and
further directed to give difference of salary from 01.06.2006
to 28.02.2017.
12.3. It is reported to this Court that petitioner having
reached to the age of superannuation, being retired from
services, respondents are directed to grant retirement
benefits like gratuity and leave encashment to the petitioner
on the basis of considering 32 years of continuous service of
the petitioner including her pension starting from 01.03.2017.
12.4. Let respondents calculate and pay all these
aforesaid benefits including its arrears to petitioner on or
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16526/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
before 31st January, 2026, failing which, petitioner is entitled
to receive such arrears amount with 9% interest from 01 st
February, 2026 till its realization. It is also open for petitioner
to initiate contempt proceeding against erring officials of
respondents for not complying with aforesaid direction in time
12.5. In view of the foregoing conclusion, the present
writ petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule
made absolute. At present no costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
Lalji Desai
