Sureshkumar Laxmishankar Bhatt vs State Of Gujarat
2025 Latest Caselaw 6861 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Sureshkumar Laxmishankar Bhatt vs State Of Gujarat on 23 September, 2025

                                                                                                            NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/SCA/6683/2023                                 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025

                                                                                                             undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                       R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6683 of 2023

                       ==========================================================
                                                SURESHKUMAR LAXMISHANKAR BHATT
                                                             Versus
                                                    STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MAUNIL G YAJNIK(9346) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MR SHIVAM PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

                                                         Date : 23/09/2025

                                                             ORAL ORDER

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Shivam Parikh waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents-State.

2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Maunil G. Yagnik for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Shivam Parikh for the respondents- State.

4. The present writ application is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief :-

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6683/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025

undefined

"(a) This Honourable Court may be pleased to allow the present special civil application;

(b) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondent no.2 to release and grant the benefits of higher pay scale to the petitioner with the interest @ 12% p.a.; and revise the pension and pay all terminal dues on his pay revision.

(c) This Honourable court may be pleased to grant all consequential benefits on the basis of promotion or pay revision granted to immediate junior and colleague of the present petitioner.

(d) This Honourable court may be please quash and set aside order passed below exhibit-33 in RCS 19 of 1989.

(e) Grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."

5. It is the case of the petitioner that despite succeeding before the appellate Court in the year 1989, till date, the respondents -State have intentionally withheld the benefit accrued from such judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court confirmed by this Court, dismissing the Second Appeal.

6. According to learned advocate Mr. Maunil Yagnik for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the Executing Court in the execution application is a non- speaking order, inasmuch as the remarks which were never communicated to the petitioner is a basis of non-granting higher pay scale and other promotional benefits which

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6683/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025

undefined

otherwise accrued in favour of the petitioner by virtue of judgment and decree dated 11.01.1989 passed by the appellate Court concerned sought to be executed.

7.1 Learned advocate Mr. Yagnik would further submit that the petitioner superannuated in the month of July, 2006 and it appears that some meeting held on 17.10.2006, wherein some adverse entry found against the petitioner would a basis of denying promotional benefits as prayed in the execution application, though filed in the year 1989.

7.2 Learned advocate Mr. Yagnik would further submit that as per settled legal position of law, an un-communicated adverse remarks to the employee concerned, it would not come in the way of employee while giving any higher benefit and or any promotion to such employee by State as an employer. It is submitted that such aspect of the matter never adjudicated by the Executing Court.

7.3 So, Learned advocate Mr. Yagnik would request to this Court to quash and set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Executing Court for its adjudication afresh, thereby, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to substantiate his claim, the Executing Court can pass appropriate order in accordance

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6683/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025

undefined

with law.

8. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Shivam Parikh vehemently opposed the present writ application, mainly on the ground that the impugned order passed by the trial Court on 23.08.2018, whereas the present writ application is filed in the year 2023. According to the learned AGP, having not explained the delay in filing the present writ application and this Court should not entertain the present writ application.

8.1 So far as the merit of the matter is concerned, learned AGP in absence of any record would not in a position to substantiate and counter the submission made by the learned advocate for the petitioner. Nonetheless, learned AGP would also request this Court that in a case where his objection i.e. delay in filing writ application, is not readily accepted by this Court, the matter may be remanded back for fresh adjudication.

9. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the impugned order, it appears that the execution proceedings so instituted in the year 1989, the decree holder was left without any substantial justice having not decided his claim till 2018. The

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6683/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025

undefined

claim of the petitioner was pursuance to the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court on 11.01.1989, whereby all service benefits including back wages available to the plaintiff requires to be paid by the respondents- judgment debtor.

10. As such, if any adverse remarks stood against the employee, as per settled legal position of law, requires to be communicated to the employee by employer, otherwise such adverse entry would not affect the employee in claiming higher service benefit.

11. At this stage, it would be apt to refer to and rely upon decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725, wherein held thus;

"41. In our opinion, non-communication of entries in the annual confidential report of a public servant, whether he is in civil, judicial, police or any other service (other than the military), certainly has civil consequences because it may affect his chances for promotion or get other benefits (as already discussed above). Hence, such non- communication would be arbitrary, and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution."

(emphasis supplied)

12. In the case on hand, it is not made clear from the impugned order as to whether such adverse remarks ever communicated to the petitioner for his response or not ?

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6683/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025

undefined

13. So, in absence of such details on record and learned AGP also not in a position to further assist this Court, on such aspect, matter requires to be remanded back to the Executing Court for its adjudication afresh. At least, execution application needs to be properly adjudicated by executing court after affording proper opportunity of hearing to both sides.

14. So far as the objection raised by the learned AGP as regards the delay in filing the present writ application is concerned, this Court considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, inasmuch as the petitioner being decree holder aged about 75 years left and deprived to get fruits of the decree, passed in the year 1989 cannot be allowed dishearten further by saying that due to delay in filing writ application, his claim otherwise found to be meritorious can be rejected by the Court. Furthermore, the petitioner was not keeping good health and suffered from certain medical issues, as copy of his medical records are submitted along the present writ application, which is remain uncontroverted by the learned AGP, having not filed any reply to this writ application.

15. In view of aforesaid, if this Court accept submission of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6683/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025

undefined

learned AGP, it would not only mockery of justice but when execution remained pending since 1989 till impugned order passed in year 2018, then, petitioner having filed writ application after some years including counting COVID-19 period, this Court would not like to close his door on mere technicality. So, this Court is not accepting such argument of learned AGP, rather agreed with submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Yagnik. Accordingly, agreed for remand of the matter.

16. Even otherwise, this Court when found that there is erroneous and perverse reasons assigned by the trial Court and passed any order contrary to its jurisdiction, as this Court having its power of superintendence given under the Constitution of India requires to step into the matter, thereby correct such erroneous order.

17. This Court requires to quash the impugned order as its by now well settled that in a case of jurisdictional error committed by Trial Court and so also to keep the Court within its bound, such power of superintendence so vested with this Court requires to be exercised for ends of justice. [See - Waryam Singhvs vs. Amarnath,, reported in AIR 1954 SC 215 (para-13) & Bhudev Mallick alias Bhudeb Mallick and Another vs. Ghoshal and Others, reported in 2025 SCC

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6683/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025

undefined

OnLine SC 360 (para 53 to 58)].

18. In view of the aforesaid observation and reasons, the following order is passed;

(i) The impugned order dated 23.08.2018 passed by the 8 th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot in Executing Application No. 19 of 1989, is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Executing Court concerned to re-decide the issue germane in the Execution Application itself by restoring back aforesaid execution application if already disposed of.

(ii) After giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, the trial Court is hereby directed to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law.

(iii) The parties to execution are free to submit their respective written submissions/documents/evidence to substantiate their respective claim pending to be decided in the execution.

(iv) Such exercise will be undertaken by the Executing Court within a period of One month from the date of receipt of copy of this order as the execution proceeding is of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6683/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025

undefined

year 1989.

19. In view of aforesaid and conclusion, the present writ application is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

Direct service is permitted.

(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) SALIM/