Gujarat High Court
Ramanbhai Surtanbhai Mandol vs State Of Gujarat on 27 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8067/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8067 of 2017
==========================================================
RAMANBHAI SURTANBHAI MANDOL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PARTH PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 27/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government
Pleader Mr. Parth Patel waives service of notice of Rule on
behalf of respondents.
2. At the outset, learned AGP Mr. Parth Patel for the respondent-
State would submit the affidavit-in-reply, which is taken on
record.
3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave for the petitioner
and learned AGP Mr. Parth Patel for the respondents.
4. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8067/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
"(A) A writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus any other
appropriate writ, order or direction be issued to
(i) direct the respondents to extend benefit of Government
Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner and the petitioner
be directed to place in fix pay after his completion of five years
service from the date of his first appointment, i.e. 14.02.1995,
and further be pleased to place the petitioner in pay-scale after
completion of 10 years of service from 14.02.1995;
(ii) direct the respondents to immediately place the petitioner in
pay-scale from counting his date of appointment as 14.02.1995
and accordingly be pleased to direct the respondents to fix the
petitioner's pay-scale as per Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988;
(iii) to direct the respondents to pay the arrears of salary to the
petitioner after extending benefits of Government Resolution
dated 17.10.1988;
(iv) quash and set aside impugned decision dated 21.12.2016
issued by respondent No.2;
(B) Pending the admission hearing and final of the hearing petition, this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately
place the petitioner in pay-scale of Class IV as a Watchman by
extending benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988;
(C) Any other and further relief or reliefs to which this Hon'ble Court
deemed fit, in the interest of justice; may kindly be granted."
5. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
5.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Dave appearing for the petitioner
would submit that though the petitioner is entitled to receive
the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17th October
1988, the same was wrongly denied by respondent-State only
on the ground that he had not completed 240 days of service
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8067/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
when terminated. It is respectfully submitted that on getting
termination of service by petitioner, he approached the Labour
Court who allowed his reference whereby reinstated in service
with continuity, thereby, as per provisions of Section-25(B) of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he requires to be continued in
service and entitled to receive the benefit of Government
Resolution dated 17th October 1988. It is further submitted
that aforesaid award dated 3rd January 2014 passed by the
Labour Court is also confirmed by this Court while dismissing
the writ petition vide order dated 18th March 2015 passed in
Special Civil Application No.17718 of 2014.
5.2. Learned Advocate Mr. Dave would further respectfully submit
that the issue germane in the matter is no longer res integra,
having already been decided by two judgments of the Division
Bench of this Court, in following cases.
(i) State of Gujarat V/s. Ashok Laxmanbhai Parmar in Letters
Patent Appeal No.1268 of 2017 dated 18/06/2018, reported in
2018 SCC OnLine Guj 2344;
(ii) Jamnagar District Panchayat & Anr. V/s. Girdharbhai
Muljibhai Eradiya & Anr. in Letters Patent Appeal No.1205 of
2025 dated 10/11/2025.
5.3. Making the above submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Dave
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8067/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
would request this Court to allow the present writ petition.
6. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
6.1. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Patel would respectfully submit
that as stated in the reply, it remained undisputed on record
that the petitioner has not completed 240 days of service prior
to his termination i.e. 31st December 1997 and merely because
order of reinstatement with continuity of service passed by the
Labour Court, it would not entitle the petitioner to claim any
benefit flowing from Government Resolution dated 17th
October 1988.
6.2. So, according to learned AGP Mr. Patel, the claim made in the
present petition is rightly denied by the respondent-State and
there is no merit in the petition.
7. No other and further submissions are made.
8. Having heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective
parties and after considering the facts of the present case, the
issue germane in this matter would stand covered by the
aforesaid cited two judgments of the Division Bench binding to
this Court, wherein, the following proposition of law laid
down:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8067/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
8.1. In the case of Ashok Laxmanbhai Parmar (supra), it has been
observed and held 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 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."
(emphasis supplied)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8067/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
8.2. In the case of Girdharbhai Muljibhai Eradiya (supra), wherein,
after referring the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court, it has been observed and held thus:
"4.4 The contention of the petitioners was that when the judgment
and award of Labour Court granted them continuity of service and
same was confirmed by the higher courts, the benefits arising from
Resolution dated 17.10.1988 would be available to them as
necessary corollary. The following observations of the Court in
Prabhatbhai Mudhwa (supra) in paragraph 5 may be noticed with
relevance,
"It is an admitted fact fact that the petitioners have served
since 1988 upto 31.3.1998; their services came to be
terminated and they were reinstated on 13.5.2019 after the
judgment and award of labour court, which granted them
continuity of service. Therefore, it would necessarily follow
that entire period of service of the petitioners from the
respective date in the year 1988 till reinstatement or
retirement, as the case may be, would have to be counted as
continuous either based on actual service rendered or
notionally in view of the continuity benefit conferred by the
labour court."
4.5 The Court further observed after noticing that the judgment and
award of the Labour Court was confirmed by this Court in Special
Civil Applications, which were dismissed,
"...in para-5 of the impugned communication, the petitioners
were specifically denied the benefits of Resolution dated
17.10.1988. It was stated that the petitioners would be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8067/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
entitled to minimum wages only. In the same way, those
petitioners who have retired with effect from 31.7.2017 have
also been denied the benefits of Resolution dated
17.10.1988, which otherwise would have to be granted to
them in the facts of the case. Respondent No.2 authority has
evidently ignored and disregarded the effect in law required
to be given to the judgment and award of the labour court
confirmed by this court as above in denying the benefits of
Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The benefits flowing
therefrom have to be accorded their to into account the
petitioners taking respective factual matrix of services."
"5. The Division Bench in Ashok Laxmanbhai Parmar
(supra), dealt with similar set of facts and the grievance to observe
thus, extracting from paragraph 5,
"...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."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8067/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
5.1 It was further observed that when the workman was
forced to leave duties on account of unlawful termination by
the employer, the employer cannot take benefit of its own
illegal action to deny continuity of service, which was
otherwise granted by the lower court."
(emphasis supplied)
9. Even in the aforesaid last decision of the Division Bench of this
Court, while rejecting the arguments of the respondent-State,
also referred to recent past judgments of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar & Ors. V/s. Union of India
reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327 and Jaggo V/s. Union of India
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826.
10. Thus, in view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case and when the stand taken by the respondent-State
in the present case is already turned down by the aforesaid two
judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court, there is
no reason to deviate from such view, which otherwise binding
to this Court.
11. In view of the foregoing reasons, I pass the following order.
11.1. This writ petition deserves to be allowed, which is hereby
allowed as follow:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8067/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
(i) The respondents are directed to give all consequential
benefits of Government Resolution dated 17th October
1988 to the petitioner w.e.f. 14th February 1995
notionally up to 3rd January 2014 and further directed to
give the difference of salary from 3rd January 2014 till its
payment.
(ii) Once, the aforesaid benefits will be paid by the
respondents to the petitioner, as the petitioner is still in
service, respondents are directed to pay him regular
salary will all service benefits.
(iii) All the arrears shall be paid to the petitioner as early as
possible preferably before 31st March 2026, failing which
the petitioner is entitled to receive any such arrears
amount with 6% interest from 1st April 2026 till its
realisation.
12. In view of the foregoing conclusion, the present writ petition is
hereby partly-allowed. Rule is made absolute, to the aforesaid
extent.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
NILESH
