Gujarat High Court
Bharatbhai Ramjibhai Vaza vs Gujarat Water Supply And Sewerage Board on 18 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10627 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
BHARATBHAI RAMJIBHAI VAZA
Versus
GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SAMIR B GOHIL(5718) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 18/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate for the
respondent waives service of notice of rule on behalf of
respondent. With the consent of the parties, the matter is
heard at length for final hearing.
2. The present petition, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner for
seeking the following reliefs:
"A) Directing the respondents to grant benefit of fixed pay
w.e.f 25.4.1992 instead of 25.6.1996 and to grant benefit of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
regular pay scale w.e.f 25.4.1997 as per GR dt. 17.10.1988
and further directing the respondents to revise his pay
scale and further directing them to pay all consequential
benefits including pension and gratuity as per Government
Resolution dt.17.10.88 with 8% arrears.
B) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition,
the respondents may be directed to fix and pay pension to
the petitioner on the basis of last drawn pay as per GR dt.
17.10.88 after his retirement on 31.8.2020.
C) To grant such and further relief as may be deemed fit
and proper."
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 joined service as Watchman-daily wager on
24.4.1987. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were
terminated on 1.7.1989. The petitioner challenged his
termination before the Labour Court in Ref.(L.C.J) No.
1804/1990. By the award dated 19.7.1995, the Labour Court
allowed the reference and ordered for reinstatement with
continuity of service. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated
in service as per the above award on 12.5.1995. It is further
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
the case of the petition in this petition that thereafter by the
order dated 25.6.1995, the petitioner was appointed in fixed
pay as per Government Resolution dated 17.10.88. In fact,
the petitioner was entitled to be appointed in fixed pay on
24.4.1992 when he had completed 5 years of total service as
per GR date 17.10.1988. The petitioner is due to retire from
service on 31.08.2020. Therefore, the petitioner made
representation on 4.10.2019 requesting the respondents to
grant him benefits of GR dated 17.10.1988 from 24.4.1992
and pay all consequential benefits. It is further the case of
the petition in this petition that in response to the above
representation, the respondent no.2 vide letter dated
30.11.2019 asked the respondent no.3 to send proposal with
details. In response to the above letter date 30.11.2019, the
respondent no.3 vide letter dated 30.12.2019 forwarded
proposal/details of the petitioner wherein it has been stated
that the petitioner joined service on 24.4.1987 and he was
granted benefits of fixed pay of Rs.750/- w.e.f. 25.6.1996.
Thereafter, the respondents have not taken any final decision
in the matter and the petitioner is due to retire from service
on 31.8.2020. Hence, the present petition has been preferred.
4. Heard Mr. Samir Gohil, learned advocate for the
petitioner and Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-
5. Mr. Samir Gohil, learned advocate for the petitioner has
submitted that in the present case, the petitioner had joined
service as daily wage-driver on 24.4.1987 and he completed
10 years of total service on 25.4.1997 without break as per
Section 25B of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and as per GR
dated 17.10.1988, daily wager having completed 10 years of
service will be entitled to permanency and other terminal
benefits such as pension and gratuity. In this case, the
petitioner had completed total 10 years of service on
25.04.1997. However, he was granted benefit of regular pay
scale w.e.f 29.6.2004. He has further submitted that the
petitioner was granted benefit of regular pay scale belatedly
which resulted into gross monitory loss and loss of
pensionable service and as per the law laid down by the
Division bench in the case of Executive Engineer Panchayat
(Maa And M) Department vs. Samudabhai Jyotibhai Bhedi
reported in 2017 (4) GLR 2952, a daily rated employee
having completed 10 years of service as per Section 25B of
I.D Act is entitled to get benefit of regular pay scale and
other retirement benefits such as pension and gratuity. He
has further submitted that in view of the earlier order dated
01.07.1989 passed by the Labour Court in reference LCJ No.
1804 of 1990, the Labour Court has allowed the reference
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
and ordered for reinstatement with continuity of service and
thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated in service as per the
above award on 12.05.1985. He has submitted that the
present petition is required to be allowed accordingly,
considering the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench,
which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:-
6. Per contra, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has strongly opposed the
submissions made at the bar by learned advocate for the
petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner herein was
working purely on temporary, ad hoc and daily wage basis
depending upon the availability of work and funds. He has
further submitted that the petitioner was not offered work on
any permanent and sanctioned post after following due
procedure of recruitment and, therefore, he was not entitled
to any relief. He has further submitted that the petitioner
was not offered the work w.e.f. 01.07.1989 due to non
availability of work and, thereafter, the petitioner has
approached the Labour Couert by way of filing reference
being Reference No..1804 of 1990 praying for various benefits
and the same was allowed by the Labour Court on
19.07.1995 in part by way of awarding reinstatement with
continuity and 25% back wages. He has further submitted
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
that subsequently, the petitioner was reinstated in service as
a daily wager. He has further submitted that in view of the
G.R. dated 17.10.1988, the petitioner was getting benefit of
minimum pay scale for a period of five year on completion of
240 days continuously in a year and thereafter, the petitioner
has been granted benefit of regular pay scale w.e.f.
13.10.2000 on completion of total service of 10 years as per
provisions of G.R. dated 17.10.1988. He has further submitted
that petitioner who is holding a qualification of SSC pass
was placed in establishment of Work Charge [Class III] and
he was given a benefit of pay scale of Rs.5200-20220 and
Grade Pay 1900 with effect from 29.11.2011. He has further
submitted that another order in that regard was passed on
14.7.12. He has further submitted that the petitioner who
attained the age of superannuation on 31.2.2020 is released
various retiral benefits as per the rules and regulations
framed by the board. He has further submitted that
therefore, the petitioner cannot now claim any injustice and
no further relief can be granted. Hence, he has prayed to
dismiss this petition.
IN REJOINDER SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONER:-
7. In rejoinder, Mr. Samir Gohil, learned advocate for the
petitioner has, in response to the arguments advanced by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, drawn the
attention of this Court towards the affidavit-in-rejoinder and
copy of the award, and has submitted that in view of these
facts, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the
aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench and, therefore,
though the retirement benefit is required to be granted on
the completion of the service, which is required to be granted
from the year 1996, but no benefit has been granted and the
respondent has granted the benefits from some later date
and, therefore, he has submitted that the benefits are
required to be granted accordingly in view of the fact that
the petitioner has now retired.
ANALYSIS:-
8. I have considered the rival submissions made at the
bar. It is not in dispute that the learned Labour Court has
allowed the Reference of the petitioner and granted the
prayers in Reference by directing the respondent to reinstate
the petitioner with 25% back wages and also by giving
continuity of service to the petitioner. It seems that the
petitioner was appointed on 24.04.1987. Therefore, considering
the G.R. dated 17.10.1988, the petitioner is required to be
given regular pay scale after five/ten years accordingly. It
also transpires that the judgment which is relied on by the
learned advocate for the petitioner is squarely applicable to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
the facts of the present case. Therefore, it is required to
reproduce relevant paragraphs 1 to 13 of the judgment of
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Samudabhai
Jyotibhai Bhedi (supra) for understanding the controversy
involved in that matter as well as to compare the facts of
the matter, the said relevant paragraphs are as follows:
"1. This appeal is filed by the Dahod
district panchayat challenging the judgment of
the learned Single Judge dated 07.08.2015 passed in
Special Civil Application No.67 of 2012. At
the center of the controversy is the right of a daily
wager employee who was later on, as per the
Government Resolution, regularized in service to
receive pension. Learned Single Judge having
directed the panchayat and State authorities to grant such
pension, the panchayat is in appeal before us. To
appreciate the controversy, we may refer to the relevant
facts in brief.
2. The employee original petitioner joined services of the
panchayat as the labourer on daily wage basis on
28.05.1977. According to him, since then he was
employed virtually and uninterruptedly and all
throughout the period and in the process had completed
more than 10 years of continuous service as provided HC-
NIC Page 2 of 12 Created On Fri Aug 18 03:48:49 IST
2017 C/LPA/1439/2015 JUDGMENT in section 25B of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
the Industrial Disputes Act. In other words,
in all those years, the petitioner had put in
more than 240 days of actual work. On
the basis of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, his
service was also regularized with effect from
31.01.2006. He retired on crossing the age
of superannuation on 31.01.2009. According to
him, he had completed 22 years of
continuous service which should qualify for
pensionary benefits. Since such benefits were
not granted, he approached the High Court
by filing the said writ petition interalia praying
for a direction that the respondents should pay to
the petitioner pension with interest.
3. The stand of the respondents emerging
from the record is that to receive pension,
an employee must have put in a minimum 10 years
of service. Since the petitioner was regularized only in
the year 2006 and retired in December, 2009, he had put
in barely three years of regular service. Since
years of service required for pension, his claim
for pension was rejected.
4. Before the learned Single Judge, the
petitioner relied on the Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988 and a subsequent clarificatory circular
dated 30.05.1989 to contend that even service prior to the
regularization as long as the years during which the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
employee had completed continuous one year of service,
would qualify for pensionary benefits. Learned Single
Judge accepted the contention and by the
impugned judgment, directed the respondents to
consider the past service of the petitioner rendered as
daily wager for the purpose of pensionable service provided
in a particular year he had completed 240 days of service.
The pension was to be released within specified time with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum. It is this
judgment that the panchayat administration
has challenged before us in this Letters Patent Appeal.
5. Facts are not seriously in dispute. According to the
petitioner, he had completed in all close to 22 years of
service with the Panchayat, during which, he had worked
for more than 240 days in each year. Even if this
claim of having put in 240 days of actual
service in each of the 22 years is subject
to verification, even the original respondents do
not dispute that the petitioner had completed
far more than 10 years of such service.
It was precisely because of this reason granting
benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988,
he was regularized in services on 31.03.2006.
From such date onwards till he retired, the employee
had concededly put in just over three years
of service. The crucial question therefore is
would the past service of completed years prior to
regularization would count towards pensionary benefits.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
6. As is well known, under Government
Resolution dated 17.10.1988, the Government
decided to grant benefits of regularization and
permanency to daily rated workers who had completed
more than 10 years of actual service prior to such date, of
course subject to certain conditions. One of the clauses in
the said Government Resolution was that the
benefit of regularization would be available to those
years of service considering the provisions of
section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act. They
would get benefits of regular pay scale and other
allowances, pension, gratuity, regular leaves etc.
They would retire on crossing age of 60 years. That
the period of regular service shall be pensionable.
7. This Government Resolution led to several doubts. The
Government itself therefore came up with a
clarificatory circular dated 30.05.1989, in which,
several queries which were likely to arise
were clarified and answered. Clause6 of this circular is
crucial for our purpose. The question raised was that an
employee who had put in more than 10
years of service as on 01.10.1988, would be granted the
benefit of Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988. In that context, the doubt was
whether for the purpose of pension, the past
service of completed years prior to regularization would
be considered or whether the pensionable service
would be confined to the service put in by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
employee after he is actually regularized. The
answer to this query was that those employees who had
put in more than 10 years of service as per
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 would
get the benefit of pension. For such purpose, those years
during which the employee had fulfilled the
provisions of section 25B of Industrial Disputes Act, such
years would qualify for pensionary benefit.
8. Two things immediately emerge from this
clarification. First is that the query raised
was precisely what is the dispute before us and second is
that the clarification of the Government was
unambiguous and provided that every year during which
the employee even prior to his regularization had put in
continuous service by fulfilling the requirement of having
worked for not less than 240 days as provided under
section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act,
would count towards qualifying service for
pension. In view of the clarification by the government
itself, there is no scope for any further
debate. The petitioner was correct in contending that
having put in more than 10 years of
continuous service as a labourer in the past,
he had a right to receive pension upon
superannuation. This is precisely what the
learned Single Judge has directed, further
enabling the employer to verify as to in
how many years he had put in such service and then
to compute his pension.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
9. Learned counsel Shri Munshaw for the
Panchayat however drew our attention to some
other clauses of the said clarificatory circular dated
30.05.1989. None of these clauses have a direct
bearing on the controversy at hand. These
clauses merely refer to from which point of
time such benefits may be available. It
may be that benefits of regular services such
as regular pay scale, leave, gratuity and
pensionary benefits may be available only
after regularization of an employee. However, this does
not mean that his past continuous service would be wiped
out for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The stand of
the authorities that only that service which the
employee had put in after actual order of
regularization would count for pension is thus
in conflict with the Government circulars itself.
10. The issue can be looked from slightly different angle.
As it likely to happen in many cases and
appears to have happened in the present case, actual
order of regularization may not be passed immediately
upon an employee having put in 10 years of continuous
service for variety of reasons such as inaction on the part
of the employee to press for such benefits,
verification needed at the hands of the administration and
sometimes, sheer inertia may delay actual
regularization. Would that mean, the benefit
of pension would be denied to an employee because after
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
the belated regularization he did not have sufficient time
to render 10 years of qualifying service? The answer has
to be in the negative.
11. In the past, same or similar issues have traveled to
the Division Benches in Letters Patent
Appeals. Learned Single Judge in case of
Tribhovanbhai Jerambhai v. Dy. Executive Engineer, Sub-
Division, R & B Deptt. & Anr. reported in 1998 (2)
GLH 1, held that once a daily rated
workman is treated to be permanent in terms of
resolution dated 17.10.1988, his entire continuous service
from the date of entry till retirement including his
services rendered prior to the date of his
regularization has to be taken into consideration for the
purpose of computing pension or for making pension
available to the employee. This decision was
carried in appeal by the employer before the Division
Bench. The Division Bench by order dated 04.04.2003
noted that the appeal had become time
barred. Even on merits, the Division Bench was not
inclined to take a different view.
12. In case of Surendranagar Dist. Panchayat
and Anr. v. Umarkhan Alikhan Malek and
ors., Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated
29.03.2016 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal
No.2047 of 2004, considered the issue where
the employee had sought pensionary benefits having
worked from the years 1978 to 1991. The learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
Single Judge applying the formula of section 25B of
the Industrial Disputes Act held that the employee had
put in continuous service for more than 10 years
as a daily wager. He was entitled to
benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988
including the benefits of pension. The
administration had merely contended that the workman
had not put in actual 10 years of service
after regularization before he can seek pensionary benefits.
13. Yet again, the Division Bench of this
Court in case of Chhaganbhai Ranchhodbhai
Rathod v. Dy Executive Engineer, vide
judgment dated 06.08.1998 rendered in Letters
Patent Appeal No.1495 of 1997, took up the issue
of pensionary benefits of a daily wager in terms of
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The
controversy was whether the employee had put in
10 years of service during which he had
worked for not less than 240 days in
every year. Learned Single Judge having rejected the
petition, the employee had filed the said
Letters Patent Appeal. The Division Bench applying
the provisions of Section 25B of the Industrial
Disputes Act, held that the workman had put in
such service of a minimum 10 years and consequently
granted the benefits of pension in terms of
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Here also the
authorities had not raised a contention which is sought to
be raised before us.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10627/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
14. Be that as it may, in view of the discussion
above, we find no merits in this appeal. The same is
therefore dismissed."
CONCLUSION:
9. Considering the aforesaid judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court, which is binding to this Court, I am of
the view that the present case, also the prayers prayed in
the present petition is required to be allowed. Accordingly,
the present petition is allowed in terms of paragraph 11(A) of
the present petition. Let the respondents may do needful to
consider the claim of the petitioner herein by considering the
various benefits in view of the abovementioned observation
and consider the prayers in the present petition accordingly
and grant the benefits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably
within eight weeks from today. Accordingly, the present
petition is disposed of as allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
DIWAKAR SHUKLA
