Gujarat High Court
Kaluben Devjibhai Chavda vs State Of Gujarat on 11 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1401/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1401 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
=============================================
KALUBEN DEVJIBHAI CHAVDA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR NILESH M SHAH(780) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS FORUM SUKHADWALA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
=============================================
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, 3 and 4 as also learned AGP Ms.Forum
Sukhadwala for respondent No.1, waive service of notice of
rule for respective respondents.
2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the
respective parties, the present matter is taken up for hearing.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1401/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
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 to 4 as also
learned AGP Ms.Forum Sukhadwala for respondent No.1 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.
(B) to quash and set aside order dt.20-12-13, Ann-H passed by
Respondent No.4 to the extent of not granting benefit of Resolution
dt.17-10-88, Ann-G from 01-01-90 and to the extent of stating
appointment date as 10-11-13.
(C) to direct the Respondents to give the benefit of Resolution dt.
17-10-88, Ann-G 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 31-05-06 till its actual
implementation and also to direct the Respondents to correct
appointment date as 1985 in the service book of the Petitioner and
all the records of the Respondents.
(D) during the pendency of this petition by way of interim relief to
direct the Respondents not to change the service condition of the
Petitioner and also direct the Respondents to give pay slip every
month to the Petitioner.
(E) to grant any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit in
the interest of justice.
(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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1401/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
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
respondent No.4 in the year 1985, whose services were
terminated abruptly by respondent No.4 along with others on
27.12.1990. So, petitioner along with others raised Industrial
Dispute being Reference Case (LCS) No.72 of 1994, which
came to be decided by the Labour Court, Surendranagar in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1401/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
favour of petitioner, vide its judgment and award dated
17.02.2006, 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.17615 of 2006. It appears from the record
that such judgment / award is confirmed up to Hon'ble
Supreme Court, having dismissed the Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No.1918 of 2007, vide its judgment and order dated
03.01.2008.
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 recovery application
No.81 of 2011, which had been dismissed by the Labour Court
vide judgment dated 08.12.2015. Against the said judgment,
writ petition being Special Civil Application No.6123 of 2016,
which has been withdrawn by the petitioner to file substantive
petition and therefore, the present petition is filed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1401/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
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
20.12.2013, petitioner along with others treated to have been
in service only from 10.11.2013 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 of the same Sub-division who also reinstated in the
service as per the 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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1401/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
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 co-employees, 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
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;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1401/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1401/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
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 to 4
so also learned Asst. Government Pleader Ms. Forum
Sukhadwala for respondent No.1, 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 concern is ordered to be reinstated without
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1401/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
consider continuity of service of petitioner herein though not
expressly 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
20.12.2013 passed by respondent No.4 to the extent of not
granting benefits to petitioner of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 from
01.01.1990 and to the extent of stating her appointment w.e.f.
from dated 10.11.2013 is hereby quashed and set aside by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1401/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
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. 01.01.1990 notionally up to 30.05.2006 and
further directed to give difference of salary from 01.06.2006
to 30.11.2021.
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 36 years of continuous service of
the petitioner including her pension starting from 01.12.2021.
12.4. Let respondents calculate and pay all these
aforesaid benefits including its arrears to petitioner on or
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1401/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
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)
GAURAV J THAKER
