Gujarat High Court
Ashwinkumar Rakeshbhai Parmar vs District Development Officer on 24 November, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1218/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1218 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20706 of 2023
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1219 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7512 of 2024
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1220 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20704 of 2023
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1221 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20708 of 2023
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1222 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20703 of 2023
================================================================
ASHWINKUMAR RAKESHBHAI PARMAR
Versus
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR HIMANISH J JAPEE(11295) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
===============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 24/11/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Himanish J.
Japee for the appellant, learned advocate
Ms.Sejal K. Mandavia for the respondent No.1
and learned Assistant Government Pleader
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1218/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
Ms.Shruti Dhruve for the respondent No.2.
2.1. At the outset, learned advocates for
the parties submitted that Letters Patent
Appeals have been preferred against the
impugned Judgment and Order passed by the
Hon'ble Single Judge, as under :
Name of SCA filed by LPA filed by LPA filed by
Petitioner Petitioner Panchayat Petitioner
Ashwinkumar SCA No.20706 of LPA No.730 of LPA No.1218
Rakeshbhai 2023 2024 of 2025
Parmar
Patel SCA No.7512 of LPA No.1342 of LPA No.1219
Dikshitkumar 2024 2024 of 2025
Vithalbhai
Sharma SCA No.20704 of LPA No.731 of LPA No.1220
Arvindkumar 2023 2024 of 2024
Manilal
Mukesh J. SCA No.20703 of LPA No.733 of LPA No.1222
Solanki 2023 2024 of 2025
Parmar SCA No.2708 of LPA No.732 of LPA No.1221
Bharatkumar 2023 2024 of 2025
Ramabhai
2.2. It was submitted that the aforesaid
Letters Patent Appeals filed by the Panchayat
have been disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1218/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
of this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice
A.S.Supehia and Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Mauna M.
Bhatt) by dismissing the same upholding the
order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge.
3. Considering the above submissions, we also
Admit these Appeals. Learned advocate Ms.Sejal
K. Mandavia and learned Assistant Government
Pleader Ms.Shruti Dhruve waive service of
notice of admission for and on behalf of the
respective respondents.
4. The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court
(Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.S.Supehia and
Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Mauna M. Bhatt) has
followed the order dated 11.07.2024 passed in
Letters Patent Appeal No.659 of 2024 wherein,
similar issue has been dealt with. The order
dated 11.07.2024 reads as under :
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1218/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
"14. The employees before us have
contended that they are entitled to
arrears from their initial date of
appointment and not from 01.01.2020,
whereas the State has prayed for
restricting it for three years.
15. In our considered opinion, the date
01.01.2020 cannot be made applicable in
all the cases uniformly in wake of the
fact that the date of appointment of
each of the employees and date of filing
of the writ petitions is also different.
16. We have heard on this issue. Before
we may pass final orders, it would be
apposite to refer to the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Shiv Dass
(supra). While dealing with the issue of
delay and latches caused in filing the
writ petitions challenging termination
orders, the Apex Court has held thus:
"10. In the case of pension the cause
of action actually continues from
month to month. That, however, cannot
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1218/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
be a ground to overlook delay in
filing the petition. It would depend
upon the fact of each case. If
petition is filed beyond a reasonable
period say three years normally the
Court would reject the same or
restrict the relief which could be
granted to a reasonable period of
about three years. The High Court did
not examine whether on merit
appellant had a case. If on merits it
would have found that there was no
scope for interference, it would have
dismissed the writ petition on that
score alone."
17. Thereafter, in the case of Tarsem
Singh (supra), where the issue pertains
to the claim of pension, the Apex Court
has held thus:
"5. To summarise, normally, a
belated service related claim will
be rejected on the ground of delay
and laches (where remedy is sought
by filing a writ petition) or
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1218/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
limitation (where remedy is sought
by an application to the
Administrative Tribunal). One of the
exceptions to the said rule is cases
relating to a continuing wrong.
Where a service related claim is
based on a continuing wrong, relief
can be granted even if there is a
long delay in seeking remedy, with
reference to the date on which the
continuing wrong commenced, if such
continuing wrong creates a
continuing source of injury. But
there is an exception to the
exception. If the grievance is in
respect of any order or
administrative decision which
related to or affected several
others also, and if the re-opening
of the issue would affect the
settled rights of third parties,
then the claim will not be
entertained. For example, if the
issue relates to payment or re-
fixation of pay or pension, relief
may be granted in spite of delay as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1218/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
it does not affect the rights of
third parties. But if the claim
involved issues relating to
seniority or promotion etc.,
affecting others, delay would render
the claim stale and doctrine of
laches/limitation will be applied.
In so far as the consequential
relief of recovery of arrears for a
past period, the principles relating
to recurring/successive wrongs will
apply. As a consequence, High Courts
will restrict the consequential
relief relating to arrears normally
to a period of three years prior to
the date of filing of the writ
petition."
18. The aforementioned both the
judgements are considered by the
Supreme Court in the case of Rushibhai
Jagdishchandra Pathak vs. Bhavnagar
Municipal Corporation, JT 2022 (5) S.C.
470. It is held thus:
"12 In Tarsem Singh (supra), the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1218/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
delay of 16 years in approaching the
courts affected the consequential
claim for arrears and thus, this
Court set aside the direction to pay
arrears for 16 years with interest.
The Court restricted "the relief
relating to arrears to only three
years before the date of writ
petition, or from the date of demand
to date of writ petition, whichever
was lesser". Further, the grant of
interest on arrears was also denied.
13. The aforesaid ratio in Tarsem
Singh (supra) has been followed by
this Court in State of Madhya
Pradesh and Others v. Yogendra
Shrivastava, (2010) 12 SCC 538 and
Asger Ibrahim Amin v. Life Insurance
Corporation of India., (2016) 13 SCC
14. In the facts of the present case,
it is accepted that the respondent-
Corporation had accepted the
interpretation rendered by the High
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1218/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
Court of Gujarat to the Scheme
whereby the appellants, on financial
upgradation, would be entitled to the
higher grade payscale of the next
promotional post, which is Rs.5,000-
8,000/- in the present case. As noted
above, the impugned judgment of the
Division Bench accepts the said
position and grants the appellants
the said pay-scale but restricts the
benefit from the date of the judgment
of the Single Judge in the Writ
Petitions filed by the appellants,
that is, with effect from 31st July
2018. The Division Bench should not
have taken the date of the
decision/judgment of the Single Judge
for grant of the said benefit in view
of the decision and ratio in Tarsem
Singh (supra) which has been followed
in several other decisions. That
apart, the date of the decision of
the Single Judge is a fortuitous
circumstance. Only the date of filing
of the writ petition is relevant
while examining the question of delay
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1218/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
and laches or limitation. The
appellants would, in consonance with
the case law referred to above, be
entitled to the arrears for three
years before the date offiling of the
Writ Petition."
19. The Apex Court has held that the
claim which is related to service
benefits, one of the exceptions to the
said rule of delay and latches relating
to a continuing wrong. It is held that
where a service-related claim is based
on a continuing wrong, relief can be
granted even if there is a long delay in
seeking remedy, with reference to the
date on which the continuing wrong
commenced, if such continuing wrong
creates a continuing source of injury.
But there is exception to the exception.
Ultimately, it is held that the High
Courts will restrict consequential
relief relating to arrears normally to a
period of 3 years prior to the date of
filing of the writ petition. The Supreme
court in case of Rushibhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1218/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
Jagdishchandra Pathak (supra) has held
that the High Court should not have
taken the date of decision / judgement
of the learned Single Judge for grant of
benefits in view of the decision and
ration in Tarsem Singh (supra), and
further it is clarified that "only the
date of filing of the writ petition is
relevant while examining the question of
delay and latches or limitation, and the
arrears are to be confined for three
years before the date of filing of the
writ petition.
20. Hence, the date of filing of the
respective writ petitions becomes very
relevant while restricting the arrears
for three years. In the present group of
appeals, the writ petitions have been
filed after considerable delay and
hence, the grant of actual arrears to
such writ petitioners is governed as per
the law enunciated by the Apex Court in
the aforementioned decisions. The
arrears are required to be restricted to
the period of 3 years prior to the date
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1218/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
of filing of each of the respective
petitions. The reliance placed on the
decision of the Apex Court in the case
of Lekh Ram (supra) will not apply to
the present facts, since the issue with
regard to delay in filing the writ
petitions by the employee was neither
raised nor examined.
21. This directions will only be
confined to those employees, who have
belatedly filed writ petitioners beyond
three years questioning the action of
the State authorities in conferring the
regular pay-scale belatedly, and not
from their initial date of appointment.
22. Hence, the directions issued by the
learned Single Judges in the respective
writ petitions is altered and all the
employees shall be entitled to the
actual arrears from a period of 3 years
prior to the date of filing of the
respective writ petitions. It is
clarified that since we have not
disturbed the decision with regard to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1218/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
the conferment of the regular pay-scale
from the initial date of appointment,
the pay fixation and other benefits to
all the employees shall counted
notionally for the intervening period.
23. With these observations, the present
appeals are disposed of. As a sequel,
the connected applications are also
stand disposed of."
5. Therefore, the present Letters Patent
Appeals are also disposed of in terms of the
observations made in Letters Patent Appeal
No.659 of 2024 which are reproduced herein
above. As a sequel, the connected applications
also stand disposed of.
Registry shall place a copy of this order
in the connected matters.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
PALAK
