Abdulkadar Musabhai Shaikh vs Chairman, Agricultural Produce Market ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 7994 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Abdulkadar Musabhai Shaikh vs Chairman, Agricultural Produce Market ... on 17 November, 2025

                                                                                                           NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/SCA/1111/2021                                 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025

                                                                                                            undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


                                      R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1111 of 2021

                      ==========================================================
                                        ABDULKADAR MUSABHAI SHAIKH
                                                   Versus
                             CHAIRMAN, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                      MR DIPAN DESAI(2481) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                                                         Date : 17/11/2025

                                                          ORAL ORDER

1. By way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with provision of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief/s:

"10 (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ in nature of mandamus/certiorari and / or any other appropriate writ, order of directions, quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Controlling Authority Payment of Gratuity Act, Nadiad, in Review Application in Gratuity Application No. 12 of 2016 dated 07.09.2019;

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ in nature of mandamus/certiorari and / or any other appropriate writ, order of directions, directing the learned Controlling Authority to consider the 30 years of service of the petitioner as the petitioner has put his 36 service with respondent.

(C) Pending admissions, hearing and final disposal of the petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1111/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025

undefined

operation, execution and implementation of order passed by the learned Controlling Authority Payment of Gratuity Act, Nadiad, in Review Application in Gratuity Application No.12 of 2016 dated 07.09.2019 (D) Any other and further reliefs may be granted in favour of petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

2. The facts giving rise to present petition are that the petitioner joined the respondent as a Clerk on 01.05.1978 and retired on 31.01.2015 after completing 36 years and 6 months of service. At the time of retirement, he was paid gratuity of Rs.10,39,500/- calculated on the basis of 25 months' salary. The petitioner claimed that as per Government Resolution dated 05.07.2000 read with Rule 32(D), he was entitled to gratuity on the basis of 30 months' salary and that the correct amount payable was Rs.12,47,400/-, leaving a difference of Rs.2,30,905/-.

2.1 The petitioner therefore approached the Controlling Authority, which determined the gratuity as Rs.61,510/- and directed payment of Rs.1,85,635/- with 10% interest vide order dated 30.11.2016, wherein the petitioner's name was also wrongly recorded. In review, the Authority corrected only the name but maintained the same amount. A further Review Application was rejected on 07.09.2019 by holding that the petitioner was not entitled to gratuity beyond the statutory ceiling of Rs.10 lakhs under the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2010.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1111/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025

undefined

2.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 7.9.2019 passed by the Controlling Authority, Nadiad in Review Application in Gratuity Application No. 12 of 2016, the petitioner has preferred present petition.

3. Heard Mr. Yogen Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dipan Desai, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Mr. Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Authority is bad in law and on facts, inasmuch as it has been passed without proper appreciation of the pleadings, evidence and material on record, and is contrary to the statutory provisions and settled legal principles.

4.1 Mr. Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has rendered 36 years and 6 months of continuous service and is therefore entitled to gratuity for his entire service; however, the learned Authority has failed to consider this undisputed fact. He has submitted that the order is also a non-speaking and unreasoned order, as no cogent reasons have been recorded for rejection of the petitioner's claim. He has submitted that the learned Authority has further failed to

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1111/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025

undefined

appreciate the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, which clearly provide for entitlement to pension, gratuity and leave benefits.

4.2 Mr. Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the Authority had, in its own earlier order, considered the gratuity amount of Rs.1,85,635/- (2015), pursuant to which the respondent has already paid Rs.10,39,490/-, but while deciding the second review, the learned Authority ignored its own order and erroneously applied the amended provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. He has submitted that the Authority has also failed to appreciate the applicability of Rule 32(D), which renders the order untenable. He has submitted that the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2020, which entitles the petitioner to the benefit of 30 days' salary, has also not been considered, and the Authority has wrongly relied upon judgments that are entirely distinguishable on facts. He has submitted that while deciding the second Review Application, the Authority further erred in holding that gratuity cannot exceed Rs.10 lakhs under the amended Act, though it had earlier directed payment of Rs.1,39,490/-.

5. On the other hand Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the impugned order has been passed strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1111/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025

undefined

amended, and after considering the material placed on record, and therefore no interference is warranted. He has submitted that the learned Authority has rightly applied the statutory ceiling of Rs.10 lakhs prescribed under the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2010, and the respondent has already paid Rs.10,39,490/- to the petitioner, which is more than the permissible limit; hence no further amount is payable.

5.1 Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that the petitioner has no vested right to gratuity beyond the statutory ceiling, and the Government Resolution relied upon cannot override the provisions of the Act. He has further submitted that the learned Authority, while considering the second Review Application, has correctly interpreted the amended statutory provisions and rectified the earlier erroneous computation. He has submitted that there is no illegality, arbitrariness or procedural infirmity in the impugned order, and the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any perversity or violation of principles of natural justice.

5.2 Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the petitioner has not availed alternative remedy of Appeal and has directly challenged the order of the Controlling Authority before this Court in the present petition however, under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, an Appeal would lie against an order of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1111/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025

undefined

Controlling Authority.

5.3 Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the present petition is preferred after the limitation has expired of preferring Appeal. Therefore, also the petition may not be entertained.

6. I have gone through the relevant materials and documents produced on record. I have also perused and examined the impugned order passed by the Authority.

7. Having considered the submissions, it appears to this Court that the petition is preferred directly before this Court without availing alterative remedy of Appeal under Section 7(7) of the Act. The petition is not required to be decided on merits, however, leaving the parties to raise all the contentions in Appeal that may be filed along with appropriate application.

8. In the result, the present petition is disposed accordingly. The petitioner is relegated to the Appellate Authority for deciding the application which shall be preferred by the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, after granting full opportunity of hearing to both sides.

9. It is open for both the parties to raise all the contentions before the Appellant Authority available under the law. It is also observed that both the parties

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1111/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025

undefined

shall cooperate with the proceedings and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and shall remain present before the Appellant Authority either personally or through their representative on the date fixed by the Appellant Authority.

Direct service is permitted.

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI