Gujarat High Court
Sanjaykumar Dineshkumar Bhil vs State Of Gujarat on 25 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12483/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12483 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
=============================================
SANJAYKUMAR DINESHKUMAR BHIL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR GAURAV K MEHTA(5227) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,5,6,7
PETITION/APPEAL WITHDRAWN/DISMISSED for the Petitioner(s) No. 4
MS FORUM SUKHADWALA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 25/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Gaurav Mehta
appearing for the petitioners requests the Court to allow the
petitioners to challenge the impugned communication/order
annexed at Annexure-I (collectively), whereby the case of the
petitioners are denied by the respondent authority.
1.1 Permission, as sought for, is granted. The amendment be
carried forthwith and accordingly, the prayer clause be
amended forthwith.
2. The present writ petition is filed under Articles 14, 16
and 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs :
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12483/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit the present
petition;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue appropriate writ,
order or direction for quashing and setting aside the illegal,
arbitrary and discriminatory treatment of the respondent authority
for not passing any order and for not considering the law laid down
by this Hon'ble Court in the judgments dated 28.12.2018 and
09.05.2019 and further be pleased to hold the same as bad at law.
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue appropriate writ,
order or direction directing the respondent authority the pass
appropriate order by considering the judgments dated 28.12.2018
and 09.05.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court as well as the
Government Resolution dated 16.07.2019 issued by the finance
Department in case of the petitioners and further be pleased to
direct the authority to extend the benefit of reinstatement and also
to extend the benefit of salary to the tune of Rs. 14,800/- as
prescribed in the Government Resolution dated 16.07.2019.
(C1) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ
order or direction for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 1-
8-2024, 10-12-2024 and 13-12-2024 passed by respondent No.2
(Annexure-I (colly) and further be pleased to hold the same as bad
at law."
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS :
3. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Gaurav Mehta
appearing for the petitioners would submit that the issue
germane in this present petition is squarely covered by
various decisions passed by learned Single Judge and Division
Bench of this Court, which are annexed with this petition
thereby the case of the petitioners would stand cover,
inasmuch as, benefit of Government Resolution dated
16/07/2019 issued by Finance Department of State of Gujarat
requires to be extended to the petitioners.
3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Mehta would state that this Court
vide its order dated 24/08/2021 initially disposed of this
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12483/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
petition with a direction to consider the case of the petitioners
in light of the aforesaid judgment/resolution of State. The
liberty was reserved in favour of the petitioners to revive this
petition in a case where any adverse decision taken.
3.2 Learned advocate Mr. Mehta would further state that
after remand of the case, respondent authority vide its
impugned communication dated 01/08/2024 rejected the
claim of the petitioners by not extending the benefit of
aforesaid resolution on the pretext that the petitioners are
working only for two hours.
3.3 Learned advocate Mr. Mehta would respectfully state
that petitioners were appointed initially between 1998 to 2005
as part-time employees for six hours on fixed wage of
Rs.1,350/- per month. It is submitted that the nature of duty
discharged by the petitioners as a Class-IV employee, i.e. Peon
and Water Bearer respectively and thereby, entitled to receive
minimum of the pay-scale available to Class-IV employees
fixed by State, i.e. is Rs.14,800/- per month w.e.f. 01/01/2019
and thereafter, any upward revision of pay granted by State.
It is submitted that such benefit was wrongly denied to the
petitioners, though entitled.
3.4 Learned advocate Mr. Mehta would respectfully submit
that as per initial appointment of each petitioner, appointment
orders unequivocally state that all were working for six hours
a day as part-time employees. It is submitted that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12483/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
petitioners' services were terminated on the basis of
Government Resolution dated 10/02/2006 issued by Finance
Department, State of Gujarat, but again they appointed on the
very post, albeit through outsourcing, which is deprecated by
this Court in no uncertain terms in its aforesaid decisions.
3.5 Learned advocate Mr. Mehta would respectfully submit
that due to intervention of this Court, in other similarly
situated petitioners' cases, ultimately State came out with the
aforesaid resolution in the year 2019, thereby, extended the
benefit of minimum of the pay scale of Class-IV employee to
part-time employee. According to learned advocate Mr.
Mehta, petitioners are also entitled to receive similar benefits.
3.6 So, making the above submissions, learned advocate
Mr.Mehta would respectfully submit that similar such benefit
requires to be extended to the petitioners and as such,
impugned decision taken by the respondent authority is
arbitrary, erroneous, perverse, and contrary to law.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS :
4. Per contra, learned AGP Ms.Forum Sukhadwala
appearing for the respondents would respectfully submit that
there is no dispute as regards the initial appointment of the
petitioners on the post of Class-IV and working hours fixed for
six hours only with fixed wages. It is submitted that when
their services were terminated, on a re-appointment, they
engaged for only two hours which cannot be disputed by the
petitioners.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12483/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
4.1 learned AGP would submit that to give benefit of
aforesaid resolution dated 16/07/2019, part-time employee
must be working for more than four hours and thereafter
entitled to receive such benefit. It is submitted that as none of
petitioners fulfilled such criteria, such benefits denied to
them, thus, impugned order is just and proper, passed in
accordance with State policy.
4.2 Learned AGP would further submit that after
considering the case of the petitioners, competent respondent
authority has passed a reasoned order whereby not granted
the benefit of aforesaid resolution to the petitioners and as
such, there is no error committed. So, it is requested that this
Court should not interfere with impugned decision.
4.3 Making the above submissions, learned AGP requests
this Court to dismiss the present petition.
ANALYSIS :
5. Having heard learned advocates for their respective
parties and after going through the pleadings and documents
which are annexed therewith, and so also the previous
decisions passed by Single Judge and Division Bench of this
Court in various matters made available on record, and so
also taken into account the aforesaid Government Resolution
dated 16/07/2019, following would emerge.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12483/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
(i) It is not in dispute that initial appointment of all
petitioners were for six hours as part-timers on Class-IV
post, on fixed wages of Rs. 1350/ p.m. between years
1998 to 2005. Their services were terminated due to
Government Resolution dated 10/02/2006, which can be
discernible from affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.
2 herein.
(ii) The petitioners again re-appointed on the very post,
albeit through outsourcing and in that event, it appears
that working hours of the petitioners so fixed only for two
hours though discharging the similar duty as they
discharged when appointed earlier between years 1998
to 2005.
(iii) The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment
dated 21/12/2018 passed in Special Civil Application
No.7462 of 2012 and allied matters in terms criticized
the action of the State by engaging persons through
outsourcing, inasmuch as, observed that earlier those
persons were engaged by the State on a part-time basis
but discharged and again engaged through outsourcing
method. Such recourse adopted held to be not in
consonance with law. It has been further observed in the
very judgment that all such employees who are either
working as temporary employee and/or engaged through
outsource, entitled to receive at least minimum of the pay
scale available to Class-IV.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12483/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
(iv) The aforesaid judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court
carried by State before Division Bench, which confirmed
the aforesaid judgment by its judgment and order dated
09/05/2019 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1155 of
2019, whereby after confirming the decision, directed
State to grant/extend the benefit of minimum of the pay
scale of Class-IV to such employees working on a fixed
pay as a part-time or casual employee.
(v) After getting such defeat from Coordinate Bench and
Division Bench of this Court, finally State came out with
aforesaid resolution dated 16/07/2019 issued by its
Finance Department, whereby agreed to extend the
benefit of minimum pay-scale of Rs.14,800/- p.m. to part-
time employees working in various departments. The
clause-4 of the aforesaid resolution also indicates that
those part-timers who were relieved from their services
due to resolution dated 25/04/2012, they are required to
be reinstated in their services and also entitled to get
benefit of the aforesaid resolution dated 16/07/2019.
(vi) A bare reading of the aforesaid resolution would also
indicate that State has taken into account its earlier
resolution dated 10/02/2006 whereby, the present
petitioners were relieved from their services.
(vii) It further appears that the petitioners herein have
preferred this petition wherein vide its order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12483/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
24/08/2021, my predecessor has disposed of this present
petition by directing the respondent authority to consider
the case of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid
judgments and Government Resolution. Nonetheless,
liberty was reserved in favor of the petitioners to revive
this petition by filing a note, in a case where any adverse
decision taken by respondent authority.
(viii) It further appears that vide impugned communication
dated 01/08/2024, respondent authority has not extended
the benefit of aforesaid resolution to the petitioners only
on the ground that petitioners are working only for two
hours.
6. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and after considering
the aforesaid judgments and Government Resolution, it can be
seen that all petitioners were appointed as part-timers on a
fixed pay of Rs.1350/- p.m. and working hours fixed were six
hours a day. It is true that later on, due to Government
Resolution dated 10/02/2006, their services were terminated,
thereby relieved from their services. But, at the same time,
they were re-engaged by way of outsourcing, which was in
terms deprecated by this Court in no uncertain terms, in its
aforesaid judgement. If such would be the position, I do not
find any valid reason for not extending the similar benefit to
the present petitioners who were in fact working as part-
timers for six hours, when first relieved.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12483/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
7. It is also undisputed that when petitioners re-engaged in
their services through outsource, considering the nature of
duties they are discharging, they would be entitled to receive
benefit of aforesaid Government Resolution dated 16.07.2019.
The respondents through learned AGP unable to show any
dissimilarity between the case of petitioners and other
similarly situated person except placed reliance upon the
order of their reappointment through outsource.
Nevertheless, legitimate right of petitioners to receive
benefits flowing from aforesaid resolution cannot be denied
overlooking other factors as discussed/noticed above.
CONCLUSION :
8. In view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case, and considering the ratio of the aforesaid
judgment of this Court, impugned communications dated
01/08/2024, 10/12/2024 and 13/12/2024 passed by respondent
authority in the case of each petitioner is hereby quashed and
set aside.
9. Consequently, all petitioners are entitled to receive
minimum of the pay-scale available to Class-IV employee and
thereby, entitle to receive Rs.14,800/- w.e.f. 01/01/2019 and
further upward revision thereof till date.
10. Accordingly, respondents are hereby directed to pass
appropriate order by granting all consequential benefits
flowing from aforesaid resolution dated 16.07.2019 to each
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12483/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
petitioner and start paying minimum of pay-scale of Class-IV
to all petitioners as per prevailing rate. The arrears of such
benefits be paid to the petitioners on or before 31.01.2026,
failing which the petitioners are entitled to receive such
arrears of amount with 9% interest from 01.02.2026 till its
realization.
11. In view of the foregoing reasons and conclusion, present
writ petition is partly-allowed. Rule is made absolute, to the
aforesaid extent. No order as to cost.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
