Gujarat High Court

Ajmatali Mohammadali Makrani vs The Secretary, Department Of Forest And ... on 24 November, 2025

Author: Nirzar S. Desai

Bench: Nirzar S. Desai

                                                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




                           C/SCA/1221/2021                                        JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025

                                                                                                                     undefined




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.                       1221 of 2021


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

                      =====================================================

                               Approved for Reporting    Yes     No
                                                         Yes
                      =====================================================
                                   AJMATALI MOHAMMADALI MAKRANI
                                               Versus
                      THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT &
                                                ORS.
                      =====================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR JITENDRA H SINGH(3199) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                      MR. ANANTANAND J SINGH(10046) for the Petitioner(s)
                      No. 1
                      PRABHATSINH J PARMAR(7996) for the Petitioner(s) No.
                      1
                      MR MITUL GAUTAM ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
                      Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
                      =====================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

                                                       Date : 24/11/2025

                                                          ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Leave to amend is granted. By way of amendment,

the petitioner seeks to challenge the order

dated 22.08.2019 and prays for quashing and

setting aside the said order.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025

undefined

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Anantanand Singh

appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and

learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mitul

Gautam appearing on behalf of the respondent-

State.

3. Since the pleadings are complete, and with the

consent of the learned advocates for the

respective parties, the matter was taken up for

final hearing. Hence, RULE. The learned

Assistant Government Pleader waives service of

notice of rule for the respondent-State.

4. Though the record of the petition has been made

bulky by the parties by placing various

documents on record, the original dispute

agitated in the petition lies within a very

narrow compass. By this petition, the petitioner

seeks a declaration that he is entitled to

receive pension from 01.01.2015 as per the

applicable eligibility criteria.

5. The brief facts of the petitioner's case, as

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025

undefined

stated by learned advocate Mr. Singh, are that

the petitioner was working with respondent No.

2, i.e., the Deputy Conservator of Forests,

Godhra, as a daily-wage driver since 01.12.1989,

and retired on 31.12.2014. In 1992, the

petitioner was illegally terminated, for which

he preferred Reference Case No. 145 of 1999 (old

Reference No. 454 of 1992). The reference came

to be partly allowed by the Presiding Officer,

Labour Court, Godhra, vide order dated

15.01.2000, directing the State Government to

reinstate the petitioner with 25% back wages,

along with costs of Rs. 250/- payable separately

to the petitioner.

6. Thereafter, the aforesaid order was challenged

by the State Government by way of Special Civil

Application No. 10498 of 2000, which came to be

dismissed vide order dated 04.10.2000. The said

order was further carried in appeal by way of

Letters Patent Appeal No. 1103 of 2001 before

the Division Bench of this Court, which was

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025

undefined

dismissed by judgment dated 30.06.2010, thereby

confirming the orders passed by the Labour Court

as well as the learned Single Judge. Pursuant

thereto, the petitioner was reinstated.

7. In the meantime, the petitioner was reinstated

in service with effect from 01.02.2002, and

thereafter he was superannuated vide order dated

31.12.2014 issued by the Range Forest Officer,

Mobile Squad, Halol, permitting the petitioner

to retire upon attaining the age of 60 years

after office hours on 31.12.2014.

8. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted the

benefits of the Government Resolution dated

17.10.1988, vide order dated 23.01.2015, as per

Condition No. 2 of the Government Resolution

dated 15.09.2014, and thereafter the petitioner

prayed for pension vide his representation dated

07.08.2019, which was rejected by the Deputy

Conservator of Forest, Godhra, vide order dated

22.08.2019, on the ground that in the judgment

of the Labour Court, or the learned Single Judge

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025

undefined

of this Court, or the Division Bench of this

Court, there is no direction to consider the

services of the petitioner as continuous service

and therefore, as the petitioner has already

been given the benefits of the Government

Resolution dated 17.10.1988, no other benefits

can be granted to the petitioner, as the

petitioner has remained absent due to the

petitioner's absence from service for a period

of nine years (though in the order it is stated

that the petitioner remained absent for a period

of nine years, but from the record it appears

that the petitioner's services were terminated

in the year 1992 and he was reinstated in the

year 2002, and therefore, the aforesaid

interregnum period has been treated as absence

by the respondents).

9. In view of the above order dated 22.08.2019, it

has been held that as the petitioner has

remained absent for a period of nine years, he

cannot be granted benefits as per the Government

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025

undefined

Resolution dated 17.10.1988, even though he was

already granted such benefits, which is not the

case.

10. As the petitioner was denied the benefit of

pension vide order dated 22.08.2019, the

petitioner has prayed for the relief reproduced

in the foregoing paragraph and has preferred the

present petition.

11. I have heard learned advocate Mr.

Anantanand Singh for the petitioner. Learned

advocate Mr. Anantanand Singh has submitted that

the respondents have miserably misinterpreted

the settled legal proposition that once an order

of reinstatement is passed, unless it

specifically denies continuity of service, it is

required to be construed as directing

reinstatement with continuity of service.

12. Learned advocate Mr. Singh relied upon a

decision of this Court in the case of

Bhagwanbhai Motibhai Malivad versus State of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025

undefined

Gujarat, dated 02.02.2022, in Special Civil

Application No. 15845 of 2020, wherein, in

respect of a similar situation, the retiral

benefits flowing from the Government Resolutions

dated 17.10.1988 and 15.09.2014 were denied to

the workmen, and the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court, by the aforesaid decision, was pleased to

allow the petition and grant the benefits to the

petitioner. The aforesaid decision was carried

in appeal by the State Government by way of

Letters Patent Appeal No. 1737 of 2022. However,

vide order dated 07.03.2023, the aforesaid

Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed by the

Division Bench of this Court.

13. Learned advocate Mr. Anantanand Singh, by

pointing out the above decision and relying upon

the same, submitted that the services of the

present petitioner are also required to be

treated as continuous, and therefore the

benefits of the Government Resolution dated

17.10.1988 are required to be granted to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025

undefined

petitioner in toto, and accordingly the

pensionary benefits are also required to be

extended to the present petitioner as prayed

for.

14. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.

Gautam vehemently opposed the petition by

submitting that for the period from 1992 to 2002

(date of termination 16.07.1992 and date of

reinstatement 01.02.2002), the petitioner had

not actually worked, and therefore the State

Government has rightly denied the retiral

benefits, including pensionary benefits, to the

petitioner, and hence the order dated 22.08.2019

cannot be said to be erroneous, and the petition

deserves to be dismissed. However, Learned

Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Gautam could

not point out any decision contrary to the one

relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Anantanand

Singh while opposing the petition.

15. I have heard the learned advocates for the

parties and perused the record. It is an

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025

undefined

undisputed fact, emerging from the order dated

22.08.2019, that the petitioner was denied

pensionary benefits on the ground that his

services for a period of nine years were not

considered to be continuous service and,

therefore, he was held not entitled to

pensionary or other retiral benefits flowing

from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988,

as per the order dated 22.08.2019.

16. In view of the above, what is required to

be considered are the observations made by the

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

Bhagwanbhai Motibhai Malivad versus State of

Gujarat, dated 02.02.2022, in Special Civil

Application No. 15845 of 2020, wherein the Co-

ordinate Bench has made the following

observations in paragraphs 6 to 11, which read

as under:

"6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

7. The facts, as narrated hereinabove, are not in dispute. The termination of the petitioner was subject matter of challenge

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025

undefined

before the Labour Court. He was terminated on 01.04.1996 and pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court and confirmed by this Court, he was reinstated on 06.04.2011 and he reached the superannuation on 30.11.2012. The Labour Court in the award dated 21.07.2009 passed in Reference (LCJ) No.406 of 1999 has directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with 20% back wages, however, no observation with regard to granting or denying continuity of service was made.

8. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh (supra), wherein it has been observed thus:-

"3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on examining the materials on record, we fail to understand how the continuity of service could be denied once the plaintiff is directed to be reinstated in service on setting aside the order of termination. It is not a case of fresh appointment, but it is a case of reinstatement. That being the position, direction of the High Court that the plaintiff will not get continuity of service cannot be sustained and we set aside the part of the impugned order. So far as the arrears of salary is concerned, we see no infirmity with the direction which was given by the lower appellate court taking into account the facts and circumstances including the fact that the suit was filed after a considerable length of time. That part of the decree denying the arrears of salary stands affirmed and this appeal stands allowed in part to the extent indicated above."

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025

undefined

Thus, the Supreme Court has enunciated that the continuity of service cannot be denied to the workman if he is directed to be reinstated in service on setting aside the order of termination.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao (supra) has also reiterated the principle of law. The same is as under:-

"7. Ex facie, the Labour Court having awarded reinstatement to the appellant, continuity of service would follow as a matter of law. The award of the Labour Court dated 27 February 2008 does not specifically deny continuity of service. Hence the observation of the High Court to the effect that the Labour Court had denied continuity of service is erroneous and would accordingly stand corrected in terms of what has been observed herein-above. The appellant would be entitled to continuity of service."

                                                    Thus,     it    is   well    settled
                                              proposition   of    law  that   once   the

reinstatement as awarded by the Labour Court, the continuity of service would follow as a matter of course. Thus, the entire service from the date of termination till he was reinstated in service i.e. from 01.04.1996 to 06.04.2011 is required to be treated as continuous.

10. The issue with regard to denying the benefit flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 on the ground of non- completion of 240 days in similar facts is required to be considered in view of the observations made by the Division

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025

undefined

Bench in the order dated 18.06.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1268 of 2017. The Division Bench has observed thus:-

"5. Thus, the upshot of the aforesaid facts and discussion is that the present respondent - workman is denied the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 only on the ground that he had not completed 240 days in a year and his "continuity of service", as granted by the Labour Court vide award dated 23.07.2007 and confirmed by this court, cannot be considered. The stand taken by the present appellants that the respondent - workman is not entitled to the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 deserves to be deprecated. Once it has been established by this court that the respondent-workman is reinstated in service with continuity of service, the workman would be entitled to get the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, and such benefits cannot be denied to the respondent-workman only on the ground that he has not worked for 240 days. He was forced to live without work because of his illegal termination. The appellants cannot' take benefit of their illegal action. The termination of the respondent - workman was found to be illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The effect of continuity of service is to be conferred from the year 1996, when he was appointed as a daily wager. The impugned order dated 15.04.2016 is blissfully silent about denying the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the workmen who have been reinstated with continuity of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025

undefined

service. The Government Resolutions dated 17.10.1988 and 01.05.1991 envisage grant of benefits of pay fixation, pension, etc. to the daily wagers, who have completed certain number of years of service."

11. The Division Bench, while examining the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 has held that once the termination of the respondent- workman is found to be illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the ID Act"), the effect of continuity of service is required to be conferred and the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 cannot be denied to him on the premise that he has not worked or completed 240 days. The workman was compelled to remain out of service because of his illegal termination and such illegal action on being set aside, the respondents cannot deny the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 on the ground that the petitioner has not completed 240 days and there is no continuity of service. Such contention or submission raised by the respondent is required to be rejected at the outset in view of the fact that the termination of the petitioner has been declared illegal."

17. The aforesaid view was confirmed by the

Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent

Appeal No. 1737 of 2022 in paragraphs 7, 8 and

9, which read as under:-

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025

undefined

"7. In the case of Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held and observed in paragraph no.8 as under:-

"8. On the question of back wages, the Labour Court had confined the award of back wages to 25%. Having come to the conclusion that the findings in the disciplinary enquiry was perverse, the Labour Court observed that it was a matter of record that the workman has been gainfully employed over a part of the period after dismissal, between 3 March 1990 to 9 September 1992 with another employer. It was in the above circumstances, that the entire component of back wages was not awarded to the appellant and only 25% was awarded. The High Court has no justification to set aside the award of 25% back wages awarded by the Labour Court which was eminently fair and proper. The direction of the High Court for deletion of back wages is therefore unsustainable and is set aside."

8. In the case of M. L. Patil (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held and observed in paragraph no.3 as under:-

"3..........As such the High court may be right and/or justified in denying any salary for the period of two extra years to the writ petitioners if they would have continued in service, on the ground of delay. However, as far as the pension is concerned, it is a continuous cause of action. There is no justification at all for denying the arrears of pension as if they would have been retired / superannuated at the age of 60 years.........."

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025

undefined

9. With regard to the unexplained delay, the learned Single Judge has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2002) 9 SCC 492 and has observed that the Supreme Court has enunciated that the continuity of service cannot be denied to the workman if he is directed to be reinstated in service on setting aside the order of termination. The learned Single Judge has also referred to the decision in the case of Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao (supra) and observed that it is well settled proposition of law that once the reinstatement as awarded by the Labour Court the continuity of service would follow as a matter of course. Thus, the entire service from the date of termination till he was reinstated in service i.e. from 1st April 1996 to 6th April 2011 is required to be treated as continuous. With regard to issue of denying the benefit flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17th October 1988 on the ground of non-completion of 240 days, the learned Single Judge has considered the observations made by the Division Bench in the order dated 18th June 2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1268 of 2017 more particularly paragraph No.5 which reads thus:-

"5. Thus, the upshot of the aforesaid facts and discussion is that the present respondent - workman is denied the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 only on the ground that he had not completed 240 days in a year and his "continuity of service", as granted by the Labour Court vide award dated 23.07.2007 and

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025

undefined

confirmed by this court, cannot be considered. The stand taken by the present appellants that the respondent - workman is not entitled to the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 deserves to be deprecated. Once it has been established by this court that the respondent - workman is reinstated in service with continuity of service, the workman would be entitled to get the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and such benefits cannot be denied to the respondent - workman only on the ground that he has not worked for 240 days. He was forced to live without work because of his illegal termination. The appellants cannot take benefit of their illegal action. The termination of the respondent - workman was found to be illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The effect of continuity of service is to be conferred from the year 1996, when he was appointed as a daily wager. The impugned order dated 15.04.2016 is blissfully silent about denying the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the workmen who have been reinstated with continuity of service. The Government Resolutions dated 17.10.1988 and 01.05.1991 envisage grant of benefits of pay fixation, pension, etc. to the daily wagers, who have completed certain number of years of service."

18. By making the above observations, the

Division Bench of this Court dismissed the

Letters Patent Appeal, which indicates that both

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1221/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025

undefined

the Co-ordinate Bench as well as the Division

Bench of this Court have categorically held that

once reinstatement is awarded by the Labour

Court, continuity of service follows as a matter

of course. Therefore, merely because continuity

of service is not expressly stated, the same