Gujarat High Court
Sandipkumar Rameshbhai Patel vs Manoj Aggarwal, Ias on 19 September, 2025
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1059/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT) NO. 1059 of 2022
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/12537/2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2023
In R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1059 of 2022
With
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1428 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12537 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2023 In R/MISC. CIVIL
APPLICATION NO. 1428 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12537 of 2011
With
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12537 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2023 In R/MISC. CIVIL
APPLICATION NO. 7 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12537 of 2011
==========================================================
SANDIPKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PATEL & ORS.
Versus
MANOJ AGGARWAL, IAS & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Applicant(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL with MR
JAY TRIVEDI AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Opponent(s) No. 7,8,9
MR MANISH J PATEL(2131) for the Opponent(s) No. 5,6
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 10
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 19/09/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1059/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present applications are filed seeking initiation of the
contempt proceedings against the respondents for willful and
deliberate disobedience of the directions issued by the learned
Single Judge vide order dated 25.07.2018 passed in the captioned
writ petition.
2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas for the
applicants has submitted that the applicants are not granted the
benefit of promotion to the post of Multi - Purpose Heath
Supervisors, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court. He has
pointed out the directions issued by the learned Single Judge vide
judgment and order dated 25.07.2018 in the captioned Special Civil
Application No. 12537 of 2011, and while pointing out such
directions, it is further submitted that the learned Single Judge had
allowed the writ petition on the premise of the directions issued in
the order dated 10.08.2016, passed by the then learned Single
Judge (Abhilasha Kumari, J), in Special Civil Application No.6289 of
2011.
2.1 Learned advocate Mr. Vyas has also referred to the order
dated 21.09.2021 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, in the
contempt application being Misc. Civil Application No. 818 of 2019
and the allied matters, and it is submitted that while disposing of
the contempt application filed by the present applicants the
Coordinate Bench had taken on record the order dated 18.09.2021,
passed by the Additional Secretary, Panchayat and the directions
were issued that such order should be complied with within a
period of three months. It is further submitted that though the
order was complied, the applicants are not given consequential
benefits or promotion to the post of Multi Purpose Health
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1059/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
Supervisors. Thus, it is urged that the present application may be
allowed by punishing the respondent authorities for committing
contempt of Court.
3. Per Contra, the learned Additional Advocate General,
Ms.Manisha Lavkumar, has submitted that for claiming the
promotion to the post of Multi Purpose Health Supervisor from the
post of Multi Purpose Health Worker, the applicants have to
undergo the promotional process which is prescribed under the
Rules. She has submitted that the applicants, who are serving on
the post of Multi Purpose Health Worker, have to pass the
departmental promotional examination and also have to fulfill
promotional criteria and only after fulfilling such criteria the
applicants may be granted the promotion. She has further
submitted that in the wake of absence of any directions issued by
the learned Single Judge, the present contempt proceedings may
not be entertained.
4. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties.
5. It is pertinent to note that in the judgment and order dated
25.07.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No. 12537 of 2011,
while setting aside the termination order of the Multi Purpose
Health Workers (Class- III), the following directions were issued:
"11. As a result of aforementioned discussion, termination order dated 06.01.2018 is
quashed and set aside and this petition is allowed in the same terms as Special Civil
Application No. 6289 of 2011 decided on 10.08.2016. Petitioners will be regularized
in the same manner from the same date as in the aforementioned oral order. Rule is
made absolute."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1059/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
5.1 The learned Single Judge, while setting aside the termination
order, allowed the aforesaid writ petition in terms of the judgment
and order dated 10.08.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.
6289 of 2011. We may incorporate the directions issued vide
judgment and order dated 10.08.2016 passed in Special Civil
Application No. 6289 of 2011, the same read as under:
"36. The respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for
regularization of their services from the initial dates of their appointments, as has
been done in similarly situated cases, with all consequential benefits."
6. The learned Single Judge, was confronted with the issue of
regularization of service of the Multi - Purpose Health Worker and
ultimately, the learned Single Judge had directed the respondent-
State authorities to consider the cases of such Multi - Purpose
Health Worker for regularization of their service from the initial
date of their appointment as has been done in similarly situated
cases with all consequential benefits.
6.1 It is not in dispute that so far as regularization of the
applicants is concerned, the respondent - State authorities have
passed the order, however, the present applicants are claiming the
benefit of promotion and seniority to the post of Multi - Purpose
Health Supervisor. It is also not in dispute that for claiming
promotion, the Multi - Purpose Health Worker has to undertake the
necessary examination and the process, as envisaged in their
promotional Rules i.e. the Gujarat Panchayat Services (Class-III),
Departmental Examination Rules, 2022, and thereafter the Gujarat
Panchayat Services (Class-III), Departmental Examination (Second
Amendment) Rules, 2023. This can only be done after the seniority
of the applicants are fixed by the respondent authority. These are
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1059/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
exhaustive rules which are framed by the State Government for the
purpose of promotion. Thus, each case of the applicants has to be
examined by their parent Department, in order to see that they
satisfy the criteria for promotion after fixation of seniority. In both
the aforementioned judgments dated 25.07.2018 and 10.08.2016,
we do not find that the learned Single Judges have examined the
eligibility of each of the applicants with regard to the promotion to
the post of Multi - Purpose Health Supervisor. The benefit of
promotion which is distinct and separate from regularisation and is
governed by the statutory rules, cannot be encompassed in the
expression "consequential benefits".
7. At this stage, it would be apposite to the refer to the
decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Prithawi Nath Ram Vs.
State of Jharkhand and Ors., (2004) 7 S.C.C. 261 as well as
V.Senthur Vs. M.Vijaykumar, 2021 Scale 11 566. The applicants
are alleging willful and deliberate disobedience of the directions
issued by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.01.2022,
more particularly in paragraph No.12.
"In view of the aforesaid, the Court holds that the petitioners are entitled to
the benefits as provided under Government Resolution dated 17-10-1988. The
Court also adds that the applicability of the
Government Resolution dated 17-10-1988 would require ascertaining some
facts, which will have to be gathered from the Departments and therefore, the
Court leaves it upon the concerned Department to gather the factual aspects
with regard to the service
period and condition of the petitioners and grant the benefit as per the
entitlement under the Government Resolution dated 17-10-1988. Aforesaid
exercise to be completed within period of six months from the date of receipt
of writ of the order of this Court."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1059/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
8. The Apex Court in the case of Prithawi Nath Ram (supra)
has held that while dealing with an application for contempt, the
Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which
is alleged. The Court cannot say what should not have been done or
what should have been done. It cannot test the correctness or
otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any
direction.
9. Similarly, in the case of V.Senthur (supra) the Apex Court
has held that there can be no quarrel with the proposition that in a
contempt jurisdiction, the Court will not travel beyond the original
judgment and direction; neither would it be permissible for the
Court to issue any supplementary or incidental directions, which
are not to be found in the original judgment and order and the
Court is only concerned with the willful or deliberate non-
compliance of the directions issued in the original judgment and
order.
10. Accordingly, the present contempt proceedings are closed.
However, liberty is reserved in favour of the applicants to file
appropriate proceedings before the concerned authority claiming
their fixation of seniority and promotional benefits. Notice is
discharged.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
Radhika/19
