Gujarat High Court
Pankajkumar Kantilal Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 14 October, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14294/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14294 of 2025
========================================================
PANKAJKUMAR KANTILAL PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
========================================================
Appearance:
MS HARSHAL N PANDYA(3141) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MITUL GAUTAM ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 14/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Harshal N. Pandya for the petitioner and
learned AGP Mr. Mitul Gautam for the respondents.
2. Issue Rule. Learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of the
respondents.
3. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has sought for the following
prayers:
"8 . The petitioner prays that on the bases of the facts, circumstances
and grounds as mentioned herein above and which may be urged at the
time of hearing, the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the
respondent authorities and may be pleased to:-
(a) hold and declare that petitioner is entitled for regular appointment to
the post of Peon in the regular pay scale from date of appointment /
joining i.e. 24.03.2005 considering G.R. dated 10.03.2000 and 07.09.2002
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14294/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
of the State Government, Annexure-E as well as the decision of this
Honnourable Court mentioned in petition at Annexure -E and
(b) further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to issue
appropriate order/ modified order of appointment giving appointment to
petitioner in regular pay scale from date of appointment / joining i.e.
24.03.2005 considering G.R. dated 10.03.2000 and 07.09.2002 of the State
Government, Annexure-F and the decisions of this Honourable Court
mentioned in petition at Annexure-E, and
(c) further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay
difference of pay and allowances payable on grant of above prayer clause
with benefit of seniority, pension and other consequential benefits as have
been granted to other similarly placed employees pursuant to order of this
Hon'ble Court, and
(d) award the cost of petition, and
(e) pending admission and final hearing of this petition, the Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to direct the Res. No. 2 to take appropriate decision
for grant of regular pay scale to petitioner from initial date of appointment
in view of settled position of law, and/or
(f) grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Hon'ble
Court may consider as just and proper in the facts, circumstances and
grounds of the case."
4. At the outset, learned Advocate for the petitioner would submit that the
issue raised in this petition is covered by a decision of this Court in Special Civil
Application No.10738 of 2020 and allied matters dated 14.03.2024 and whereas it
is submitted that the said decision with a modification had been confirmed by the
Division Bench. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that
since the petitioner is similarly situated to the petitioners of the above writ
petitions, the same benefit as modified by the Division Bench, may be accorded to
the present petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14294/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
5. Learned AGP would not dispute the proposition as having been submitted
by learned Advocate for the petitioner.
6. It would appear that the petitioners before this Court, had been appointed
on compassionate basis in terms of Government Resolution dated 15.06.2004,
which prescribed the appointments on fixed pay for a period of 5 years and upon
the petitioner having satisfactorily completed the period prescribed, the petitioner
was to be absorbed in either Class III or the Class IV posts, as the case may be.
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had been wrongly appointed on
fixed pay on fixed term basis and whereas it is in this context that the persons
identically situated to the petitioner, had approached this Court by preferring the
writ petitions referred to hereinabove. It would appear that this Court, vide
judgment dated 14.03.2024 having relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as well as of this Court, had allowed the writ petitions directing
the respondents to issue modified appointment orders to the petitioners, whereby
the period from date of appointment of the petitioners would be treated as a
regular pay-scale. This Court had further directed the respondents to pay to the
petitioner all consequential benefits, which the petitioner would be entitled to
upon the change in the date of the appointment orders, including arrears of
benefits w.e.f. 01.01.2020. The respondents were directed to complete the exercise
within a period of 4 months from the date of the order.
7. It would appear that the State as well as some of the District Panchayats
had preferred Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of this Court vide
Letters Patent Appeal No.659 of 2024 and allied matters and whereas the Division
Bench vide common oral order dated 11.07.2024 had inter alia modified the said
decision to the extent that the arrears, which those petitioners would be entitled
to, would be restricted to a period of three years prior to date of filing of the writ
petitions. The Division Bench has further clarified that the Division Bench had
not disturbed the decision with regard to conferment of the regular pay-scale from
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14294/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
initial date of appointment etc. as ordered by this Court.
8. Considering such a situation, more particularly since there is no dispute as
regards the fact that the petitioners herein are identically situated to the petitioners
of the group of petitions referred to hereinabove, the benefits as the petitioners of
the above writ petitions had been conferred with, are required to be granted to the
petitioner herein.
9. Having regard to the such a position, at the outset, this Court seeks to refer
to the observations of this Court vide decision dated 14.03.2024 in case of Sanjay
Jayantilal Thakker, Talati-cum-Mantri / Gram Sevak Vs. State of Gujarat, paras
11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 11.5, 11.6, 11.7, 11.8 and 11.9 being relevant for the present
purpose are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit.
"11.1. Considering the submissions, while it would appear that on
substantive aspect, learned Coordinate Bench and Hon'ble Division Bench
have passed orders in favour of the petitioners, yet it would appear that the
State is seeking to contest the petitions before this Court mainly on two
grounds i.e. on the ground of delay and on the ground that at the time when
the applications for grant of compassionate appointment preferred by the
present petitioners had been considered, a different policy of the State was in
existence and, therefore, the State was well justified in coming to a conclusion
of appointing the petitioners on fixed term basis.
11.2. In the considered opinion of this Court, the issue is no more open for
the respondent State to take up, more particularly in view of the decision of
the learned Coordinate Bench in Sachin Ishwarlal Chavda dated 18.4.2022
expressly rejecting the contention of delay raised by the respondents and
whereas it appears that the said decision had been confirmed by the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court and whereas Hon'ble Supreme Court had also
declined to interfere in a petition, whereby the decision of the Hon'ble Division
Bench had been challenged. Paragraphs 10, 11, 12, and 13 of the decision
dated 18.4.2022, more particularly whereby the learned Coordinate Bench
had rejected the contention of the respondent State that all the petitions being
grossly delayed, being relevant for the present purpose are reproduced herein
below for benefit :-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14294/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
"10. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for
the respective parties, it appears that Mr. Manharbhai Ramanbhai
Naik, who was denied appointment on compassionate ground as a
result of the ceiling of income limit prevalent at the time of his
application, approached this Court when his case for appointment was
rejected. Considering the policy as per the GR dated 10.3.2000 and
7.9.2002, the Court set aside the stand of the State Government in
not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on
compassionate ground. The relevant portion of the order dated
7.10.2002 passed in Special Civil Application No.1579 of 2002
reads as under:
"4. At the hearing of the petition, the learned counsel for
the petitioner relies on the Government Resolution dated 7-
9-2002 laying down that the Government Resolution
dated10-3-2000 doing away with the income limit in
matters of compassionate appointment shall be given effect
from 1-1-1996.
5. In view of the aforesaid resolution, it is clear that in
cases where deceased expired on or after 1-1-1996, the
compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground
of the income of the families exceeding the prescribed limit
as no limit would now be applicable.
6. In view of the statement being made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the death of the father of the
petitioner took place while holding office and on or after 1-
1-1996 i.e. on 19-6-1999, it is obvious that the present
case will be governed by the Government Resolution dated
10-3-2000 read with the Government Resolution dated 7-
9-2002."
11. Based on these directions, Mr. Manharbhai Ramanbhai
Naik was appointed on compassionate ground by an order dated
23.7.1994 on fixed pay of Rs.2,500/-. That his appointment was
on fixed pay similar to the one in case of the petitioners is evident
from the modified order issued by the State on 12.6.2019. Reading
the order of 12.6.2019 would indicate that the State
Government considering the spirit of the order passed in Special Civil
Application No.1579 of 2002 dated 7.10.2002 modified the order
appointing that petitioner in fixed pay of Rs.2,500/- and backing
his appointment as one in the regular scale of pay from his initial
date of appointment and not after completion of five years.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14294/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
12. The facts on hand in the present cases would indicate that the
case of the petitioners is similar to that of the petitioner of Special
Civil Application No.1579 of 2002. The petitioners in the cases as
argued by Ms. Thakar who were appointed on 25.7.2004 and in
the case of Ms. Harshal Pandya, the petitioner so far as SCA
No.14953 of 2020 was appointed on 12.8.2004. Perusal of all
these orders would indicate that the petitioners were appointed on
compassionate ground on fixed pay of Rs.2,500/- as that of the
petitioner of SCA No.1579 of 2002. It was on 12.7.2019 that
petitioner Mr. Manharbhai Ramanbhai Naik for the benefit of
being appointed on regular pay scale from his initial date of
appointment and not on completion of five years and the order was so
modified. It is based on these orders that the petitioners are promoted
to approach this Court in the year 2019-2020 claiming similar
benefits.
13. The objection of delay on the part of the respondents therefore
that having accepted that appointments in 2004, the petitions are
delayed, is an objection which is misconceived."
11.3. The decision of the learned Coordinate Bench had been affirmed by the
Hon'ble Division Bench vide decision dated 5.9.2022 in LPA No.855 of
2022 and allied cases. A perusal of the said decision reveals that challenge to
the judgment of the learned Single Judge was on the ground of the original
petitioners having approached the Court after a substantial delay which,
aspect according to the appellants, had not been appreciated by the learned
Coordinate Bench. The Hon'ble Division Bench having not countenanced the
submissions of the appellant had rejected the LPA. Paragraphs No.3, 4, 5
and 11 of the said decision being relevant for the present purpose are
reproduced herein below for benefit :-
"3. The only ground raised and emphasis put on by the
appellant is delay and laches on the part of the respondent
employee seeking similar reliefs, and that too, by relying upon
the order dated 12.06.2019 passed by the Panchayat
Department, State of Gujarat in connection with similarly
situated employee, namely,Manharkumar Ramanlal Nayak.
4. The facts arise from the record are that the respondent
employee herein, who are the original petitioners namely (1)
Sachin Ishwarlal Chavda in Special Civil Application No.
14642 of 2019, who had been given order of appointment on
25.07.2004 giving effect of appointment from 16.10.2004,
(2) Prakashkumar Purshottamdas Mevada in Special Civil
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14294/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
Application No. 14646 of 2019, who had been given order of
appointment on 25.07.2004 giving effect of appointment from
15.10.2004, (3) Sanjaykumar Laxmanbhai Kalotara in
Special Civil Application No. 14873 of 2019, who had been
given order of appointment on 25.07.2004 giving effect of
appointment from 14.10.2004, (4) Dineshkumar Gokaldas
Parekh in Special Civil Application No. 14899 of 2019,
who had been given order of appointment on 25.07.2004
giving effect of appointment from 01.11.2004, (5)
Vijaykumar Kantibhai Patel in Special Civil Application
No.6138 of 2020, who had been given order of appointment
on 18.08.2004 giving effect of appointment from 16.11.2004,
(6) Harjindersinh Ramsinh Rathod in Special Civil
Application No. 6139 of 2020, who had been given order of
appointment on 11.11.2005 giving effect of appointment from
05.12.2005,(7) Bharatbhai Natvarbhai Darji in Special
Civil Application No. 6142 of 2020, who had been given
order of appointment on 15.02.2005 giving effect of
appointment from 09.05.2005 and (8) Ajitsinh Badesinh
Solanki in Special Civil Application No. 6140 of 2020, who
had been given order of appointment on 19.04.2005 giving
effect of appointment from 24.05.2005 were appointed on
fixed pay. However, considering the policy applicable to the
service conditions on compassionate grounds, the original
petitioners requested that they should have been appointed on
regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment.
5. Since the case of the petitioners was not considered for
regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointments
and the case of another employee, namely, Manharkumar
Ramanlal Nayak was considered giving effect of regular pay
scale from the date of his initial appointment, writ petitions
were filed in the year 2019 by the respondent employees herein.
6 to 10 xxx
11. As far as delay is concerned, it is true that the petitioners
have approached after a long period; however, if the order dated
12.06.2019 passed by the concerned authority is perused, the
said Manharkumar Ramanlal Nayak, who was appointed on
compassionate ground on 23.07.2003 and was given all the
benefits subsequent to petition filed by him before this Court in
the year 2017, and thus, the State Government itself has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14294/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
condoned the delay with regard to claim put forward by said
Manharkumar Ramanlal Nayak, and therefore, all the
respondent employees in the appeals herein are also required to
be given similar treatment. Learned Single Judge has also kept
in mind for filing the petition at belated stage and has observed
accordingly.
Learned Single Judge has not granted any arrears from their
initial date of appointment and has granted the benefits from
01.01.2010, and therefore, no interference is required in the
order passed by learned Single Judge. Hence, present appeals
stand dismissed."
11.4. In the considered opinion of this Court, it would appear that the
present petitioners being identically situated to the petitioners in case of Special
Civil Application No.14642 of 2019 and allied matters, the observations of
the Hon'ble Division Bench would apply with all force in the facts of the
present petitions also.
11.5. In so far as the submissions on behalf of the respondent State that a
different policy being in existence on the date when the applications were
considered, also does not require any consideration, more particularly since in
LPA No.287 of 2023 vide decision dated 3.10.2023, the Hon'ble Division
Bench had dealt with the said controversy and whereas in view of the
observations of the Hon'ble Division Bench being binding on this Court, the
submissions by the State on the said count would not merit any consideration.
Paragraphs 4.2, 5, 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of the decision dated 3.10.2023
are quoted herein below for benefit :-
"4.2 On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent would
submit that on the basis of the decision of the Supreme
Court in Ashish Awasthi (supra) in which it is held that for the
appointment on compassionate ground, policy prevalent at the
time of death of the deceased employee only to be considered and not
the subsequent policy.
5. On a closer look of the facts and attendant aspects in this case, the
controversy could be answered irrespective of whether the policy at the
time of application or the policy prevalent at the time of considering
the application, would apply. There is no need to weigh the said
principles. There is no gainsaying that when the petitioners became
eligible and they applied for compassionate appointment, the specific
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14294/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
scheme or compassionate appointment was as per the Resolution dated
10.3.2000. The Resolution dated 15.6.2004 and other Resolutions
reflected only general policy, whereby the government authorities used
to offer fixed term appointment on fixed salary basis. Somehow in
case of the petitioners the said policy was applied and the
appointments to the petitioners were given of such kind and nature,
treating them as compassionate appointment.
5.1 The policy reflected in Resolution dated 10.03.2000, in terms
provided that the eligible kith and kin of the deceased employee would
be provided appointment on compassionate ground. This appointment
was contemplated to be substantive appointment and not a temporary
one. It was a benefit to be conferred on permanent basis.
5.2 Learned Single judge misdirected himself himself in making
calling observations regarding the scheme of Resolution dated
10.03.2000, reproducing paragraph 15, "The claim of the petitioners
is for appointment as per the prevailing policy under Government
Resolution dated 10-3-2000. A perusal of the aforesaid Government
Resolution indicates that it was for the purpose of providing benefit to
the dependents of employees of Class-3 and Class-4 cadre upon his
expiry while in service and amendment made therein. However, the
entire Government Resolution does not mention anything with regards
to making the appointment on a regular post on a regular pay scale
and therefore in absence of any specific provision under the Resolution
for making appointment against a pay scale, the Court will not
presume such fact to be a policy of the State Government."
5.3 Appointing on compassionate basis is always pursuant to a
particular specific policy. That policy in the case of the petitioners was
one reflected in Resolution dated 10.3.2000. Furthermore, when a
person is appointed on compassionate basis, the appointment is
against specific post. A compassionate appointment in that way is
substantive appointment under the four corners of the policy. The
petitioners' case was required to be governed accordingly."
11.6. A perusal of the above paragraphs would clearly indicate that the
Hon'ble Division Bench was of the considered opinion that the issue could be
answered irrespective of the fact of the policy prevalent at the time of the death
of the deceased employees, or the policy prevalent at the time of the applications
being considered, being the relevant policy, being the contention of the State. It
would appear that the Hon'ble Division Bench was of the clear opinion that
the petitioners were entitled to compassionate appointment based upon the
Resolution dated 10.3.2000 and whereas insofar as the later Resolution
dated 15.6.2004 was concerned, the same was a general policy of the State
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14294/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
and whereas it was held that while the appointment of the petitioners on fixed
term for fixed salary may have been as per the policy dated 15.6.2004, but
their appointment on compassionate was on the basis of Government
Resolution dated 10.3.2000.
11.7. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, both the issues raised by
the State having already been addressed by learned Coordinate Benches as
well as Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, unless the said view of the
learned Coordinate Bench or of the Division are modified, the same would be
binding on this Court, more particularly since on factual scenario there is no
difference between the employees in the cases before the learned Coordinate
Benchas well as the Hon'ble Division Bench and the present petitioners and
whereas the issue being raised by the petitioners is also absolutely identical to
the issue decided. In view of the above, the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court relied upon by the learned AGP would not advance the cause of the
State.
11.8. At this stage, at the request of learned AGP, since it is pointed out
that in some cases, the petitioners have already approached this Court at the
time of their appointment, challenging their fixed term appointments, which
petitions had not been entertained at the relevant point of time. It is submitted
that such persons may have again approached this Court, seeking reliefs based
upon the reliefs granted to similarly situated persons and whereas it is
submitted that such persons would not be entitled to such reliefs, since the
original order whereby this petition was rejected has become final between the
parties. It is submitted that since the petitioners, who ought to have been
aggrieved by the said order, have chosen not to challenge the same at the
relevant point of time, therefore, the said decision would be binding on such
petitioners. To allay such apprehension of any employee coming before this
Court with a second round of petition, learned Advocates for the petitioners
have inter alia supplied details of each of the petitioners, more particularly
whereby the learned Advocates have specifically stated, under instructions, that
the present petitions, which are being disposed of by this Court vide the present
judgement is the first round of petitions preferred bythe petitioners before this
Court for the very cause of action. Since the present petitions involve deciding a
group of petitions, that while the statements supplied by the learned Advocates
are accepted and taken on record, yet at the same time, liberty is reserved in
favour of the State or the concerned competent authorities to approach this
Court for modification of this order, in case it is found at a later stage that
any of the petitioners has already approached this Court for the very self same
reliefs and the same has already been rejected by this Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14294/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
11.9. Having regard to the above discussion, all the petitions are allowed.
The respondents are directed to issue modified appointment orders to the
petitioners, whereby the period from the date of appointment of the petitioners
would be treated as on regular pay scale. The consequential benefits, which the
petitioners would be entitled to upon such placement, including benefit of
arrears, etc shall be given to the petitioners w.e.f. 1.1.2020. The respondent
shall complete the above exercise and disburse the arrears within four months
from the date of receipt of this order."
10. Furthermore, the decision of the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal
No.659 of 2024 dated 11.07.2024 is also required to be referred to. Paras 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 being relevant for the present purpose are
reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:
"14. The employees before us have contended that they are entitled to arrears
from their initial date of appointment and not from 01.01.2020, whereas the
State has prayed for restricting it for three years.
15. In our considered opinion, the date 01.01.2020 cannot be made
applicable in all the cases uniformly in wake of the fact that the date of
appointment of each of the employees and date of filing of the writ petitions is
also different.
16. We have heard on this issue. Before we may pass final orders, it would be
apposite to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Dass
(supra). While dealing with the issue of delay and latches caused in filing the
writ petitions challenging termination orders, the Apex Court has held thus:
"10. In the case of pension the cause of action actually
continues from month to month. That, however, cannot be a
ground to overlook delay in filing the petition. It would
depend upon the fact of each case. If petition is filed beyond a
reasonable period say three years normally the Court would
reject the same or restrict the relief which could be granted to
a reasonable period of about three years. The High Court
did not examine whether on merit appellant had a case. If
on merits it would have found that there was no scope for
interference, it would have dismissed the writ petition on that
score alone."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14294/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
17. Thereafter, in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra), where the issue pertains
to the claim of pension, the Apex Court has held thus:
"5. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim
will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where
remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation
(where remedy is sought by an application to the
Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said
rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service
related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be
granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with
reference to the date on which the continuing wrong
commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing
source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If
the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative
decision which related to or affected several others also, and if
the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of
third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For
example, if the issue relates to payment or re-fixation of pay
or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does
not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved
issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting others,
delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of
laches/limitation will be applied. In so far as the
consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period,
the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will
apply. As a consequence, High Courts will restrict the
consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of
three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition."
18. The aforementioned both the judgements are considered by the Supreme
Court in the case of Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak vs. Bhavnagar
Municipal Corporation, JT 2022 (5) S.C. 470. It is held thus:
"12. In Tarsem Singh (supra), the delay of 16 years in
approaching the courts affected the consequential claim for
arrears and thus, this Court set aside the direction to pay
arrears for 16 years with interest. The Court restricted "the
relief relating to arrears to only three years before the date of
writ petition, or from the date of demand to date of writ
petition, whichever was lesser". Further, the grant of interest
on arrears was also denied.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14294/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
13. The aforesaid ratio in Tarsem Singh (supra) has been
followed by this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and
Others v. Yogendra Shrivastava, (2010) 12 SCC 538 and
Asger Ibrahim Amin v. Life Insurance Corporation of
India.,(2016) 13 SCC 797 14 In the facts of the present
case, it is accepted that the respondent-Corporation had
accepted the interpretation rendered by the High Court of
Gujarat to the Scheme whereby the appellants, on financial
upgradation, would be entitled to the higher grade payscale of
the next promotional post, which is Rs.5,000-8,000/- in
the present case. As noted above, the impugned judgment of
the Division Bench accepts the said position and grants the
appellants the said pay-scale but restricts the benefit from the
date of the judgment of the Single Judge in the Writ
Petitions filed by the appellants, that is, with effect from
31st July 2018. The Division Bench should not have taken
the date of the decision/judgment of the Single Judge for
grant of the said benefit in view of the decision and ratio in
Tarsem Singh (supra) which has been followed in several
other decisions. That apart, the date of the decision of the
Single Judge is a fortuitous circumstance. Only the date of
filing of the writ petition is relevant while examining the
question of delay and laches or limitation. The appellants
would, in consonance with the case law referred to above, be
entitled to the arrears for three years before the date of filing
of the Writ Petition."
19. The Apex Court has held that the claim which is related to service
benefits, one of the exceptions to the said rule of delay and laches relating to a
continuing wrong. It is held that where a service-related claim is based on a
continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking
remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced,
if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is
exception to the exception. Ultimately, it is held that the High Courts will
restrict consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of 3 years
prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. The Supreme Court in case of
Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak (supra) has held that the High Court
should not have taken the date of decision / judgement of the learned Single
Judge for grant of benefits in view of the decision and ration in Tarsem Singh
(supra), and further it is clarified that "only the date of filing of the writ
petition is relevant while examining the question of delay and latches or
limitation, and the arrears are to be confined for three years before the date of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14294/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
filing of the writ petition.".
20. Hence, the date of filing of the respective writ petitions becomes very
relevant while restricting the arrears for three years. In the present group of
appeals, the writ petitions have been filed after considerable delay and hence,
the grant of actual arrears to such writ petitioners is governed as per the law
enunciated by the Apex Court in the aforementioned decision. The arrears are
required to be restricted to the period of 3 years prior to the date of filing of
each of the respective petitions. The reliance placed on the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Lekh Ram (supra) will not apply to the present facts,
since the issue with regard to delay in filing the writ petitions by the employee
was neither raised nor examined.
21. These directions will only be confined to those employees, who have
belatedly filed writ petitions beyond three years, questioning the action of the
State authorities in conferring the regular pay-scale belatedly, and not from
their initial date of appointment.
22. Hence, the directions issued by the learned Single Judges in the respective
writ petitions is altered and all the employees shall be entitled to the actual
arrears from a period of 3 years prior to the date of filing of the respective writ
petitions. It is clarified that since we have not disturbed the decision with
regard to the conferment of the regular pay-scale from the initial date of
appointment, the pay fixation and other benefits to all the employees shall
counted notionally for the intervening period."
11. Considering the observations of this Court as well as the Division Bench,
the following directions would meet with the ends of justice:
(a) The respondents are directed to issue modified appointment
orders to the petitioner inasmuch as the date of the appointment
of the petitioner would be treated as the date on which he had
entered service on regular pay-scale.
(c) Consequential benefits including benefits of arrears etc., which
the petitioner would be entitled to upon such placement would
be given to the petitioner for a period of 3 years prior to date of
filing of the writ petition.
(d) It is clarified that consequential benefits would include all
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14294/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
benefits as would have been available to the petitioner as if the
petitioner was appointed on regular basis on the date of his
appointment and would include, but not be restricted to fixing
appropriate seniority, fixation of pay / opening of GPF accounts
(if applicable) etc.
(e) It is clarified that the petitioner would be treated as being
appointed on regular pay-scale from the date of his original
appointment and whereas the period prior to 3 years from the
date of filing of the writ petition shall be treated as notional for
all purposes.
(f) Furthermore, to ensure compliance, the petitioner is directed to
produce copies of the above order before his appropriate
authority to ensure that the authorities are in the know about the
order of this Court.
(g) The above decision shall be complied with within a period of 4
months from the date the petitioner submit the order in
question to the respective head of the departments.
12. With the above directions, the present petition stands disposed of as
allowed.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
NIRU
