Gujarat High Court
Mahobatsinh Kunvarsinh Zala vs State Of Gujarat on 21 November, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9796/2024 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9796 of 2024
=====================================================
MAHOBATSINH KUNVARSINH ZALA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MS VIDHI J BHATT(6155) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA DAVDA ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 21/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Ms.Vidhi Bhatt on behalf
of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government
Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda on behalf of the respondent
- State.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner inter
alia raises a grievance as regards not being granted
the benefit of Government Resolutions dated
17.10.1988, 15.09.2014 and 06.04.2016 inspite of the
petitioner having worked for more than ten years with
the respondents where the petitioner completes more
than 240 days in a year.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9796/2024 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
2.1. It is also the case of the petitioner that while
the petitioner may have actually worked for a much
longer period, if the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of Workmen of American Express
International Banking Corporation vs. Management of
American Express International Banking Corporation
[AIR 1986 SC 458] and by this Hon'ble Court in
Special Civil Application No. 3966 of 2016 by its
oral judgment dated 22.11.2020, as confirmed by the
Hon'ble Division Bench by its order dated 13.01.2021
in Letters Patent Appeal No.83 of 2021 and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court its order dated 04.02.2022 in
Special Leave Petition No.12097 of 2021 were to be
followed by the respondents i.e. the respondents
while calculating the number of years where the
petitioner had worked for more than 240 days have
added Sundays and Public Holidays, service rendered
as a piece-rate employer which would have enured in
favour of the petitioner.
2.2. It also appears here that while the petitioner
has preferred a representation on 10.06.2024, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9796/2024 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
same has not been decided by the respondents
appropriately.
3. In the considered opinion of this Court, since
no decision has been taken by the respondents, at
this stage, the grievance of the petitioner could be
assuaged by directing the respondents to consider the
case of the petitioner in accordance with law more
particularly in accordance with the directions that
would follow. Learned advocates for the respective
parties would not have any objection to the same.
Hence, the following directions are passed:-
(i) The petitioner to serve a copy of this petition
as a representation to the respondent no.3 with a
copy to the respondent no.2 within a period of two
weeks from today.
(ii) The respondents to decide the same in accordance
with law more particularly in light of the policy of
the State Government vide Government Resolutions
dated 17.10.1988, 15.09.2014 and 06.04.2016.
(iii) The respondents shall while calculating the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9796/2024 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
number of days put in by the petitioner for the
purpose of grant of benefit as per the above referred
Government Resolutions, shall add Sundays and Public
Holidays and service rendered as a piece-rate
employee to the number of days worked by the
petitioner in the year concerned more particularly as
per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of Workmen of American Express International
Banking Corporation (supra) and this Hon'ble Court in
Special Civil Application No.3966 of 2016.
(iv) The respondents, more particularly respondent
no.3 in consultation with respondent No.2 shall take
appropriate decision within a period of ten weeks
from the date of receipt of such representation
preferred by the petitioner.
3.1. It is clarified that this Court has not gone
into the merits of the matter and whereas, the
respondents shall take a decision strictly in
accordance with law and as per the extant policy of
the State Government.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9796/2024 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
3.2. Needless to state that in case the petitioner is
aggrieved by the said decision, it would be open for
the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance
with law.
4. With these observations and directions, the
present petition stands disposed of. Direct service
is permitted.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
Pallavi
