Gujarat High Court
District Development Officer - Nadiad vs Ravjibhai Dhulabhai Vaghri on 22 September, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1090/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1090 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/2409/2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1090 of 2025
=============================================
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER - NADIAD & ANR.
Versus
RAVJIBHAI DHULABHAI VAGHRI & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MS RV ACHARYA(1124) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MS.SHRUTI DHRUVE AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR AS ASTHAVADI(3698) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 22/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present appeal has been filed by the District
Development Officer and Taluka Development Officer -
original respondent nos.1 and 2 challenging the
judgment and order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge allowing the captioned writ
petition filed by the present respondent - employee, who
had prayed for extending the benefit, as per the
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 issued by the
State Government and accordingly, to pay arrears of
Rs.15,90,450/-.
2. At the outset, learned advocate Ms. R. V. Acharya
appearing for the appellants including the Taluka
Development Officer, has submitted that pursuant to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1090/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
directions issued by this Court vide order dated
08.06.2015 in the writ petition being Special Civil
Application No.8255 of 2015 filed by the respondent -
employee, the Taluka Development Officer had
calculated the amount of the benefits arising from the
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and vide
communication dated 25.10.2016, he requested the
Development Commissioner to guide him for paying the
same, however vide communication dated 17.03.2017,
he opined that there was no sanctioned post hence, he
has to do the needful. Thus, it is submitted that the
respondent - employee is not entitled for the benefits
arising from the Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988. No further submission is advanced.
3. Learned AGP has also submitted that in fact, before the
learned Single Judge, it was pointed out that the
proposal for sanctioning the regular post of Watchman
was already rejected in the year 1993 and hence, since
he was appointed by the appellants, the entire financial
burden is to be borne by the appellant.
4. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned
advocate Mr. A. S. Asthavadi appearing for the
respondent - employee has submitted that the present
Letters Patent Appeal is required to be rejected, at the
outset, since despite the petitioner having served more
than 37 years, has been denied the benefits of the
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, which confers
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1090/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
the regular pay-scale, after completion of 5, 10 and 15
years of service. It is further submitted that the
respondent - employee was forced to approach this
Court thrice and ultimately, when the Taluka
Development Officer calculated the arrears in view of
the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, the
Development Commissioner rejected the same and no
order has been communicated to the petitioner. He has
placed reliance on the decision of the Apex court in the
case of Dharam Singh and others Vs. State of UP & Anr.
2025 Lawsuit (SC) 1122. It is further submitted that
thus, the present appeal may be dismissed.
5. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for
respective parties at length.
6. It is interesting to note that the prayers of the
respondent - employee (original petitioner) relates to
the directions issued to the respondents to pay the
benefits arising from the Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988 and to confer the arrears, which is
Rs.15,90,450/-, as per the calculation of the respondent
no.2 i.e. Taluka Development Officer. No appeal has
been filed by the State Government. The learned Single
Judge has allowed the writ petition in terms of the
aforesaid prayers. We have further noticed that the
respondent - employee despite having served for more
than 37 years, has not been extended the benefit of
regular pay-scale, as envisaged under the Government
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1090/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The Government
Resolution dated 17.10.1988 has been elaborately and
comprehensively explained and dealt with by the Apex
Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. PWD and Forest
Employees Union & two others, (2019) 15 S.C.C. 248.
7. Thus, as per the scheme of the Government Resolution
dated 17.10.1988, a daily wager, who completes 5, 10 or
15 years of service, is required to be placed in a regular
pay-scale and thereafter, he is also entitled to pension
and other retirement benefits. In the present case, it is
not denied either by the State Government or by the
appellants that the respondent - employee has been
serving for more than 37 years of service.
8. Before filing the captioned writ petition, there were two
rounds of litigation by the respondent - employee. The
first petition was filed by the respondent no.1 being
Special Civil Application No.8255 of 2015 claiming the
benefits arising from the Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988. By the order dated 08.06.2015, the learned
Single Judge directed the respondents to consider the
case of an employee (petitioner) after an appropriate
application is filed claiming such benefits. It appears
that thereafter, since the respondents did not grant the
benefits, he filed another writ petition being Special
Civil Application No.6626 of 2016. It is pertinent to note
here that the respondent - employee was constrained to
file said writ petition as the civil suit filed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1090/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
respondent - employee claiming such benefits being
Special Civil Suit No.264 of 2000 was dismissed for
default vide order dated 03.09.2003. The learned Single
Judge vide order dated 02.05.2016 passed in Special
Civil Application No.6620 of 2016 allowed the writ
petition by directing that the filing of the suit and the
dismissal of the same for non-prosecution cannot be a
ground to refuse the claim of the respondent - employee
for claiming benefits under the Government Resolution
dated 17.10.1988. Thereafter, the Taluka Development
Officer accordingly, calculated all the arrears after
granting benefits of the Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988 and forwarded to the Development
Commissioner, who rejected the same by recording that
the proposal sent by the Taluka Panchayat, Nadiyad for
sanctioning a permanent post of Watchman was earlier
also rejected by the letter dated 21.04.1993 and since
the civil suit filed by the respondent - employee was
dismissed, he is not entitled to the benefits. The
communication dated 30.07.2015 was challenged by the
employee by filing Special Civil Application No.6620 of
2016. This constrained the respondent - employee to
again approach this Court by filing the captioned writ
petition. The learned Single Judge has allowed the same.
It is very curious and pertinent to note that, the Taluka
Development Officer sent the proposal to the
Development Commissioner - respondent no.3, pursuant
to the direction issued by this Court in the earlier writ
petition being Special Civil Application No.8255 of 2015
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1090/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
on 08.06.2015, the Development Commissioner rejected
the proposal sent by the Taluka Development Officer.
Such decision was taken pursuant to the meeting held
by the Panchayat on 29.07.2016 vide Resolution No.24,
it was resolved that the employee is entitled to be paid
an amount of Rs.15,90,450/-. However, Development
Commissioner did not approve the same. The Apex
Court, in the case of Dharam Singh and others
(supra) on the issue of regularization in case of daily
wagers, after considering the Constitution Bench
Judgment of Secretary, State Of Karnataka & Others vs.
Umadevi & Ors., 2006 (4) S.C.C. (1) and the decision in
the case of Jaggo, Anita & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
2024 INSC 1034, has held thus:
"13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra)
and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a
convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness
and to sidestep fair engagement practices where
the work is inherently perennial. The
Commission's further contention that the
appellants are not "full-time" employees but
continue only by virtue of interim orders also does
not advance their case. That interim protection
was granted precisely because of the long history
of engagement and the pendency of the challenge
to the State's refusals. It neither creates rights
that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may
arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of
those refusals.
14. The learned Single Judge of the High Court
also declined relief on the footing that the
petitioners had not specifically assailed the
subsequent decision dated 25.11.2003. However,
that view overlooks that the writ petition squarely
challenged the 11.11.1999 refusal as the High
Court itself directed a fresh decision during
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1090/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
pendency, and the later rejection was placed on
record by the respondents. In such circumstances,
we believe that the High Court was obliged to
examine the legality of the State's stance in
refusing sanction, whether in 1999 or upon
reconsideration in 2003, rather than dispose of
the matter on a mere technicality. The Division
Bench of the High Court compounded the error by
affirming the dismissal without engaging with the
principal challenge or the intervening material.
The approach of both the Courts, in reducing the
dispute to a mechanical enquiry about "rules" and
"vacancy" while ignoring the core question of
arbitrariness in the State's refusal to sanction
posts despite perennial need and long service,
cannot be sustained.
20. We have framed these directions
comprehensively because, case after case, orders
of this Court in such matters have been met with
fresh technicalities, rolling "reconsiderations,"
and administrative drift which further prolongs
the insecurity for those who have already
laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we
have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest
on simpliciter directions, but it demands
imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and
verifiable compliance. As a constitutional
employer, the State is held to a higher standard
and therefore it must organise its perennial
workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget
for lawful engagement, and implement judicial
directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow
these obligations is not mere negligence but
rather it is a conscious method of denial that
erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers.
The operative scheme we have set here
comprising of creation of supernumerary posts,
full regularization, subsequent financial benefits,
and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a
pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes
and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and
transparency in administration are not matters of
grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and
21 of the Constitution of India."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1090/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
9. Hence, however, the case of the present respondent -
employee stands on better pedestal as the daily wagers
in the State of Gujarat are conferred the benefits of
regular pay scale after completion of 5, 10 or 15 years of
service in view of the Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988, which has been comprehensively dealt by
the Supreme Court in the case of PWD And Forest
Employees Union (supra). In the present case, the
respondent-employee has completed almost 37 years of
service as a daily wager.
10. Thus, the present appeal fails and the same is rejected.
We direct the appellants to approve and grant the
benefits, to the respondent - employee as directed by
the learned Single Judge, within a period of 6 (six)
weeks, failing which the amount shall carry further
interest of 9% per annum.
11. As a sequel, the connected Civil Application also stands
disposed of.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
Jaimin Prajapati/7
