Gujarat High Court
Arvindsinh Dashratsinh Rathod vs State Of Gujarat on 10 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6752/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6752 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
ARVINDSINH DASHRATSINH RATHOD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TR MISHRA(483) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DR. POOJA ASHAR, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1-STATE
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 10/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP for the
respondent waives service of notice of rule on behalf of
respondent-State. With the consent of the parties, the matter
is heard at length for final hearing.
2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner for
seeking the following reliefs:
"(A) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue an order,
direction and/or writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6752/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
respondents to grant the benefit of Class.III pay-scale of
Rs.950/1500 to the petitioner from 1997 the date on which
the petitioner has completed 7 years of service which has
been granted to other similarly situated employees in SCA
No. 12851/2000 and be further pleased to direct the
respondent to grant the said benefit from 1 July, 1997 the
date on which the petitioner completes 7 years of service
from the date of passing SSC examination;
(B) That Your Lordships be further pleased to direct the
respodent to grant the arrears arising out of the less
payment of wages and be further pleased to direct the
respondents to revise the wage of Rs.950/1500 in view of
the recommendation and acceptance of the Pay Commission
reports;
(C) Direct the respondents to pay the arrears with 12%
interest thereon;
(D) Any other and such further relief as the Hon'ble court
deem fit and proper in the interes together with costs;"
FACTS OF THE CASE:-
3. Brief facts as stated in the memo of the petition are as
under:
3.1 It is the case of the petitioner in this petition that the
petitioner was appointed in the services of the respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6752/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
vide order dated 6-8-1982 on daily-wage basis. The petitioner
was subsequently appointed as Peon-cum-Driver. It is further
the case of the petitioner in this petition that the posting
order was issued appointing the petitioner in the scale of
Rs.750-12-870-EB-14-940+Rs.100 as Special Allowance as Peon-
cum-Driver. The petitioner was issued another office order
appointing the petitioner in Class.III cadre as Driver in the
scale of Rs.3050-75-4590. It is further the case of the
petitioner in this petition that the petitioner passed SSC
examination in June, 1990. He also passed HSC examination
in 2008 and has also passed CCC course of Computer
concept in 2010.
3.2 It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition
that similar petition was filed being Special Civil Application
No. 12851 of 2000 by one Shri B.R.Kazi and others. The said
petition was allowed vide order dated 21-1-2013. It is further
the case of the petitioner in this petition that the petitioner
has joined services on 5-8-1982 and Shri B.R.Kazi joined the
duties on 16-8-1982. Shri Kazi and others have been granted
the scale of Rs.950/1500 from 16-8-1989 vide order dated 20-
5-2013. As the petitioner was not the party in the said
petition, he has been denied the aforesaid benefits. It is
further the case of the petitioner in this petition that the
petitioner passed SSC examination in June, 1990 and on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6752/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
completion of 7 years of service in 1997 petitioner was
entitled for the scale of Rs.950/1500 which has been denied
to the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner in
this petition that had the petitioner joined as co-petitioner in
SCA No.12851/2000, the petitioner also would have got the
benefit of Class.III scale on completion of 7 years service
from the date of passing of SSC examination. The petitioner
is having better qualification and has passed even HSC and
CCC also. Therefore, non-grant of Class.III scale to the
petitioner amounts to irrational discrimination. It is further
the case of the petitioner in this petition that petitioner
made representation and also gave in writing but there is no
response. Hence, the present petition has been preferred.
4. Heard Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned advocate for the
petitioner and Dr. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for the respondent - State.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-
5.1 Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner has
submitted that similarly situated persons to present petitioner
was given benefit of the Government Resolution dated
30.10.1991. He has further submitted that the petitioner
serving as driver in class-III, was initially appointed in the
year 1982 and thereafter, in the year 1990, he has cleared
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6752/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
the SSC Examination and, therefore, in the year 1997, he
was appointed as peon-cum-driver and till that, the
appointment of the petitioner was on daily wage basis and
thereafter, in the year 1997, by order dated 03.06.1997, the
petitioner was appointed in the pay scale of Rs.750-12-870-
EB-14-940 + Rs.100/- as special allowance as peon-cum-driver.
Thereafter, another office order on 24.12.2008 was issued
appointing the petitioner in Class.III cadre as driver in the
pay-scale of Rs.3050-75-4590. He has further submitted that
the petitioner has passed SSC examination in the year 1990
and thereafter, the petitioner has also passed HSC
Examination in 2008 and has also passed CCC Course on
Computer Concept in the year 2010. He has further
submitted that the petitioner is discriminated in the matter
of grant of Class.III scale on having passed SSC
Examination. He has further submitted that a similar petition
was filed before this Hon'ble Court being SCA No. 12851 of
2000, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated
21.01.2013.
5.2 He has submitted that in view of the various
Government Resolutions by the departments, it was provided
that as per the seniority, those persons, who have passed
SSC examination have been granted time-scale of pay
pertaining to Class.III cadre. He has further submitted that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6752/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
the Government Resolution dated 01.05.1991 with regard to
grant of pay-scale of Class.III employees is also very clear on
this aspect. He has further submitted that at the time of
filing of this petition in the year 2014, the petitioner was
aged about 55 years and he was likely to retire within three
years from filing of the present petition and now, he has
already retired from service and resultant effect is that, if
the benefits, which are mentioned in the G.R., given to the
class-III employees are not granted to the petitioner for the
period from 1997 to 2008, then the petitioner would face
irreparable loss in the matter of retirement benefits like P.F.,
Gratuity and Pension etc. and, therefore, the present
petitioner was filed and now, he has fairly submitted that
the petitioner has received the benefits on his retirement, but
as per the pay scale given by the respondent-authority and
not as per the case which is pleaded in the present petition
by the petitioner and, therefore, he has prayed that
appropriate order may be passed by allowing the present
petition by considering that necessary benefits are required to
be granted to the present petitioner.
5.3 He has also referred to affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the
petitioner, whereby he has relied on some orders passed by
the very department by granting benefit to the similarly
situated persons. He has also relied on the orders passed by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6752/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
the PWD Department and District Development Officer,
Rajkot whereby the benefits have been granted to the daily
wagers who have passed SSC Examination. Therefore, he has
submitted that appropriate relief may be granted by
considering the fact that now the petitioner has
superannuated and necessary benefits may be granted for
which he is entitled.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:-
6.1 Per contra, Dr. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the respondent - State has strongly
disputed the submissions made at the bar by learned
advocate for the petitioner and has submitted that case of
the petitioner is not identical to the case of other employees.
She has submitted that the petitioner has cleared the SSC
Examination in the year 1990 and the said Government
Resolution dated 30.10.1991 of which the petitioner is seeking
benefit is of the year 1991 and the petition is filed in the
year 2014 and, therefore, the present petition is not tenable
in the eyes of law and barred by delay and latches. She has
submitted that in fact, the petitioner was appointed same
way as daily wager in the year 1992, and thus, he would
have completed 7 years in the year 1991, but it is not in
dispute that the petitioner has passed the SSC Examination
only in the year 1990, and which is requirement of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6752/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
Government Resolution dated 30.10.1991 and, therefore, the
petitioner was become entitled to get benefits of G.R. dated
30.10.1991 from the year 1990 only. Therefore, though the
petitioner has passed the SSC Examination in the year 1990
and after issuance of the G.R. dated 30.10.1991, the
petitioner has never applied before the State Government to
avail the benefits of the Government Resolution dated
30.10.1991 and the petitioner has never claimed any benefit
at the relevant point of time or any time after G.R. dated
30.10.1991 came into force till the year 1997, when he was
appointed as peon-cum-driver. She has further contended that
the petition is not having sought the benefit of G.R. dated
30.10.1991 at the relevant point in time when he was
eligible, can safely be said to have forgone his right to avail
the benefits of the said G.R. dated 30.10.1991 and the
petitioner after lapse of more than 23 year at the fag end of
his career cannot seek benefits of G.R. dated 30.10.1991,
which is to be considered as huge delay of over 2 decades.
6.2 She has further submitted that petitioner has relied on
the order of similarly situated persons to him in the present
petition as well as the rejoinder-affidavit, are not helpful to
the petitioner looking to the facts of the present case. She
has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner as on
date is functioning as a driver which is a class-3 post and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6752/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
the petitioner as on date when he seeks the benefit G.R.
dated 30.10.1991 retrospectively after 2 decades is serving on
a class-III post which circumstance is starkly different from
the case of which the petitioner seeks parity.
6.3 In support of her contentions, she has relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.S. Balu
vs. State of Kerala reported in 2009 (0) AIJEL-SC 42751,
more particularly para: 17.
6.4 In view of the above, she has submitted that the
present petition is required to be dismissed as the petitioner
cannot claim any relief as such a belated stage.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:-
7.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the
bar. Essentially, petitioner's grievance is to get the grade pay
for the period from the year 1997 till the year 2008 and for
that, the petitioner has relied on the Government Resolution
dated 30.10.1991, which provides that the person, who is
seeking benefits should clear the SSC examination. The
petitioner has admittedly cleared the examination in the year
1990 and, therefore, in the year 1997 he was appointed as
peon-cum-driver and till then from the year 1982 to 1997,
the petitioner was serving as daily wager. Thereafter, on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6752/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
clearance of HSC examination, new pay fixation was done. It
transpires that when the petitioner has filed the present
position in the year 2014, he was undisputedly aged about 55
years old and as per his own averments, he was going to
retire within 3 years from the date of filing of the present
petition. Therefore, there is unexplained delay of more than
23 years as the petitioner is relying on the Government
Resolution of the year 1991. It also transpires from the
record that the petitioner has never ventilated any grievance
or claim on the basis of the G.R. of the year 1991 by
making any representation or application before the concerned
authority. It is relevant to note that the present petition is
filed at such belated stage after a delay of 2 decades.
7.2 In the other similarly situated persons, though there are
benefits given to the other persons, in the present case also,
the petitioner has received benefit; first by way of
appointment at the post of driver-cum-peon in the year 1997
and thereafter, further receiving higher grade pay in the year
2008. Therefore, when the petitioner has not availed the
remedy at the relevant point of time and now, he is seeking
the benefit of pay scale of class-III post from the particular
period to particular period without claiming the benefits at
the relevant point of time, now it cannot be considered by
giving retrospective effect; more particularly the orders which
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6752/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
are relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner is
not squarely applicable to the facts of the present case as
facts of those case are different from the facts of the present
case. The persons who are subsequently given the orders;
their facts are also different; like service tenure, date of
appointment and age of those persons, etc.
7.3 It is fruitful to refer the judgments cited by learned
AGP for the respondent-State in the case of S.S. Balu
(supra), more particularly para: 17, which reads thus:
"17. It is also well settled principle of law that "delay
defeats equity". Government Order was issued on 15.1.2002.
Appellants did not file any writ application questioning the
legality and validity thereof. Only after the writ petitions
filed by others were allowed and State of Kerala preferred
an appeal there against, they impleaded themselves as
party respondents. It is now a trite law that where the
writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long
delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the
ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that
they are similarly situated to the other candidates who
obtain the benefit of the judgment. It is, thus, not possible
for us to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the
Commission to appoint the appellants at this stage.
In New Delhi Minicipal Council v. Pan Singh and Ors.
(2007) 9 SCC 278, this Court held:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6752/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
"16. There is another aspect of the matter which
cannot be lost sight of. The respondents herein filed
a writ petition after 17 years. They did not agitate
their grievances for a long time. They, as noticed
herein, did not claim parity with the 17 workmen at
the earliest possible opportunity. They did not
implead themselves as parties even in the reference
made by the State before the Industrial Tribunal. It
is not their case that after 1982, those employees
who were employed or who were recruited after the
cut-off date have been granted the said scale of pay.
After such a long time, therefore, the writ petitions
could not have been entertained even if they are
similarly situated. It is trite that the discretionary
jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those
who approach the court after a long time. Delay and
laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable
jurisdiction."
{See also Virender Chaudhary vs. Bharat Petroleum
Corporation & Ors. [2008 (15) SCALE 67]}"
7.4 Considering this judgment, in the present case also,
there is gross delay of more than 20 years in ventilating
such grievance and as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the
delay defeats equity. When the Government Resolution is
published in the year 1991, the petitioner could have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6752/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
approached the authority by pleading his case which he has
not done till the year 2014. Merely, because some benefits
are given to some other persons, whose facts are different,
does not entitle the petitioner to claim the benefits, and that
too after much delay and, therefore, the present petition is
required to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches
and also considering the fact that petitioner is already
serving in class-III post and, therefore, as such no relief as
prayed for in the present petition can be granted in favour
of the petitioner in view of the above-mention discussions. I
found no merit in the case of the present petition and,
therefore, the present petition is required to be dismissed and
is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
DIWAKAR SHUKLA
