Gujarat High Court
Karshanbhai Ratnajibhai Jitiya vs State Of Gujarat on 25 November, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1212/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1212 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9675 of 2025
===============================================================
KARSHANBHAI RATNAJIBHAI JITIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RAKESH R PATEL(3239) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MITRAJEET S. SHUKLA for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 25/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Rakesh R. Patel
for the appellant and learned Assistant
Government Pleader Mr.Mitrajeet S. Shukla for
the respondents.
2. Being aggrieved by the order dated
16.09.2025 passed in Special Civil Application
No.9675 of 2025, the appellant has preferred
this Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1212/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
Patent, 1865.
3.1. Learned advocate Mr.Rakesh Patel
appearing for the appellant has referred to
the facts of the case and submitted that the
respondents have not given the benefits of the
Government Resolution dated 06.11.1982
whereby, the Recruitment Rules were amended
and the eligibility to Class-IV employees with
SSC, to be promoted at the post of Surveyor,
was extended. It was submitted that the
appellant-original petitioner came to know
about such Notification in the year 2015 and
therefore, he made various applications
starting from 24th August, 2015 onwards which
ultimately was decided by the respondents on
25.04.2025 rejecting the representation made
by the appellant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1212/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
3.2. It was submitted that it was not fault
of the appellant for not getting the promotion
to the post of Surveyor as the appellant was
appointed as Work-Charge Helper in the Office
of the District Inspector of Land Records,
Rajkot on 3rd February, 1973 and he had passed
examination of SSC in March, 1976 and
therefore, the appellant was entitled to get
the promotion to the post of Surveyor having
two years of experience as per the
Notification dated 06.11.1982.
3.3. It was submitted that the appellant
has time and again pointed out to the
respondents that the Notification dated
06.11.1982 was not implemented by the the
respondents and therefore, the appellant is
entitled to the benefit of the same, even
after his retirement, so as to see that his
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1212/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
pension is increased accordingly.
4. Having heard learned advocate Mr.Rakesh
Patel for the appellant and on perusal of the
impugned order passed by the learned Single
Judge, it appears that the delay has come in
the way of appellant. It emerges from the
record that the appellant, for the first time
made a representation for implementation of
the Notification dated 06.11.1982 after seven
years from the date of his retirement in the
year 2008. It is true that the representation
made by the appellant is rejected after almost
ten years by the respondents but the delay of
about seven years, occurred in preferring the
representation, cannot be condoned and is
rightly not condoned by the learned Single
Judge while rejecting the petition by
observing as under :
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1212/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
"5. From the above narration, it would
appear that the petitioner is of the
opinion that the grievances as regards
the service conditions, more
particularly condition with regard to
promotion etc. could be agitated at any
time of the liking of the employee. The
petitioner also appears to be under
some mistaken impression that the
Courts are waiting to give justice to
person like the petitioner, who deemed
it appropriate to approach the Court at
any time when they feel it convenient.
6. To this Court, it would appear that
the petitioner is an out and out
indolent litigant, who does not require
any kind of discretionary relief from
this Court. The petitioner making an
absurd claim as regards a Gazette
Notification issued by the State
Government having been hidden by the
respondents, neither appeals to reason
and is too far fetched for this Court
to even try and appreciate. A Gazette
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1212/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
Notification for promotion from Class
IV category to the post Surveyor, being
hidden by the officers of the State
Government from the year 1982 till the
year 2022 is nothing, but a fanciful
allegation by the petitioner, who
unfortunately thinks extraordinarily
high of himself to believe that State
or its officers would be complicit in
the alleged act of hiding a public
document with otherwise no material
implications since it states as regards
eligibility of Class IV employees to be
promoted to Class III post.
7. Furthermore, the petitioner is
challenging order dated 25.04.2025
inter alia submitting that he was not
required to pass departmental
examination etc. To this Court, it
would appear that while it is the duty
of officers of the State Government to
reply to requests / representations
made by the employees of the State
Government i.e. their subordinates
etc., yet to this Court, it would also
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1212/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
appear that when the applications are
preferred after an extraordinary long
time, merits of such applications
should not have been looked into and
whereas the higher authorities ought to
have disposed of the applications only
on the ground of the applications being
inordinately delayed.
8. To this Court, it would appear that
even if the petitioner has some
reasonable grievance to state about the
observations made in order dated
25.04.2025, yet the same would either
relate back to the year 1983 or
thereabout and under such
circumstances, approximately four
decades after such grievance had arisen
and after 17 years of the petitioner's
retirement, it would be too late in the
day for the petitioner to agitate such
grievances."
5. In view of the above findings arrived at
by the learned Single Judge, no interference
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1212/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
is required to be made in the impugned
Judgment and Order dated 16.09.2025 as the
appellant has already retired in the year 2008
and equities cannot be changed which has
achieved finality over a period of time. The
Appeal therefore, is accordingly dismissed.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
PALAK
