Gujarat High Court
Kiritbhai Virabhai Khant vs State Of Gujarat on 27 November, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9909/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9909 of 2024
==========================================================
KIRITBHAI VIRABHAI KHANT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS VIDHI J BHATT(6155) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
ADITYA DAVDA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 27/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Ms.Vidhi Bhatt on behalf of the
petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya
Davda on behalf of the respondent - State.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner inter alia raises a
grievance as regards not being granted the benefit of
Government Resolutions dated 17.10.1988, 15.09.2014 and
06.04.2016 inspite of the petitioner having worked for more
than ten years with the respondents where the petitioner
completes more than 240 days in a year.
2.1. It is also the case of the petitioner that while the
petitioner may have actually worked for a much longer period,
if the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9909/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
Workmen of American Express International Banking
Corporation vs. Management of American Express International
Banking Corporation [AIR 1986 SC 458] and by this Hon'ble
Court in Special Civil Application No. 3966 of 2016 by its oral
judgment dated 22.11.2020, as confirmed by the Hon'ble
Division Bench by its order dated 13.01.2021 in Letters Patent
Appeal No.83 of 2021 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
order dated 04.02.2022 passed in Special Leave Petition
No.12097 of 2021 were to be followed by the respondents i.e.
the respondents while calculating the number of years where
the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days have added
Sundays and Public Holidays, service rendered as a piece-rate
employer which would have enured in favour of the petitioner.
2.2. It also appears here that while the petitioner has preferred
a representation on 12.03.2024, the same has not been decided
by the respondents appropriately.
3. In the considered opinion of this Court, since no decision
has been taken by the respondents, at this stage, the grievance
of the petitioner could be assuaged by directing the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in
accordance with law more particularly in accordance with the
directions that would follow. Learned advocates for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9909/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
respective parties would not have any objection to the same.
Hence, the following directions are passed:-
(i) The petitioner to serve a copy of this petition as a
representation to the respondent no.3 with a copy to the
respondent no.2 within a period of two weeks from today.
(ii) The respondents to decide the same in accordance with law
more particularly in light of the policy of the State
Government vide Government Resolutions dated 17.10.1988,
15.09.2014 and 06.04.2016.
(iii) The respondents shall while calculating the number of
days put in by the petitioner for the purpose of grant of
benefit as per the above referred Government Resolutions, shall
add Sundays and Public Holidays and service rendered as a
piece-rate employee to the number of days worked by the
petitioner in the year concerned more particularly as per the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Workmen
of American Express International Banking Corporation (supra)
and this Hon'ble Court in Special Civil Application No.3966 of
2016.
(iv) The respondents, more particularly respondent no.3 in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9909/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
consultation with respondent No.2 shall take appropriate
decision within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt
of such representation preferred by the petitioner.
3.1. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits
of the matter and whereas, the respondents shall take a
decision strictly in accordance with law and as per the extant
policy of the State Government.
3.2. Needless to state that in case the petitioner is aggrieved
by the said decision, it would be open for the petitioner to
challenge the same in accordance with law.
4. With these observations and directions, the present petition
stands disposed of. Direct service is permitted.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
BHAVIN MEHTA
