Kamleshbhai Bharatbhai Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 23 April, 2026

                                                                                                                      NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/SCA/9275/2011                                         JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026

                                                                                                                      undefined




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9275 of 2011


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

                       =============================================
                                   Approved for Reporting                          Yes            No
                                                                                                   √
                       =============================================
                                              KAMLESHBHAI BHARATBHAI SHAH
                                                          Versus
                                                 STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                       =============================================
                       MR BHUVNESH GEHLOT FOR MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the
                       Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MS DHRUTI PANDYA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       MR ARPIT A KAPADIA(3974) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
                       NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
                       RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
                       =============================================
                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
                                                           Date : 23/04/2026
                                                             JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr.Bhuvnesh Gehlot, learned advocate for Mr.N.K.Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner, Ms.Dhruti Pandya, learned AGP for the State respondents and Mr.Arpit Kapadia, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

"A) admit this petition;

B) issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 15/1/2011 as the same is illegal, illogical, discriminatory, violative of Article-

14 of the Constitution of India and the same is violative of principles of natural justice;

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9275/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026

undefined

C) be pleased to grant interim relief to the petitioner and be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the concerned authorities from effecting recovery of higher pay scale granted to the petitioner as per communication/order dated 15/1/2011;"

3. By way of this petition, the petitioner is praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 15/01/2011 passed by the respondent, whereby the date of granting the benefit of the first higher pay scale was substituted from 21/4/1980 to 07/08/1980. It is the case of the petitioner that prior to appointment with respondent No.3, he was engaged by District Panchayat, Panchmahals on 01/04/1980 and relieved from such service on 06/08/1980, and without any break in service, was appointed on 07/08/1980 by respondent No.3. Whereas, the respondent herein has considered the appointment of the petitioner with the respondent District Panchayat on 07/08/1980 as a fresh appointment and accordingly, upon completion of nine years of service from such date, granted the benefit of the first higher pay scale.

4. Mr. Gehlot, learned advocate for the petitioner, would submit that the previous service of the petitioner was required to be taken into account by the respondent while calculating the period of nine years to grant the benefit of the first higher pay scale.

5. Whereas, Mr.Kapadia, learned advocate for the respondent Panchayat, has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that in the past, the petitioner preferred a writ

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9275/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026

undefined

petition, being Special Civil Application No.7712 of 2010, before this Court challenging his seniority, wherein also a similar prayer had been made as made in this petition. It is submitted that after hearing the parties, this Court, vide its order dated 21/9/2010, rejected such prayer of the petitioner. It is further submitted that in view of the said decision of this Court, as the petitioner was unable to convince this Court that the previous services can be considered by the respondent Panchayat, now it is not open for the petitioner to again agitate the same point which was already concluded by this Court in the said matter.

6. Ms.Pandya, learned AGP, would adopt the arguments of Mr. Kapadia, learned advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, and upon perusal of the pleading and documents, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was previously engaged by District Panchayat, Panchmahal on 21/4/1980 and relieved from such service on 06/08/1980. Thereafter, he was appointed by the respondent Panchayat on 07/08/1980. The service of the petitioner with the respondent Panchayat is treated as a fresh appointment and accordingly, the benefit of the first higher pay scale was granted in favor of the petitioner which can be seen from the bare reading of the impugned order dated 15/01/2011.

8. This Court would have appreciated the submission made by Mr.Gehlot, learned advocate for the petitioner, but in view

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9275/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026

undefined

of the order dated 21/09/2010 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.7712 of 2010 filed by the petitioner herein, the submission made by Mr.Gehlot, learned advocate, cannot now be appreciated, as it does not stand in law. The aforesaid order reads thus:

"Heard Mr.Majmudar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned Advocate Mr.Kapadia for the respondent - District Panchayat.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner files rejoinder. The same is taken on record.

2. The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by order dated 22.03.2010, a copy of which is produced at page No.85, whereby the authority - District Development Officer, District Panchayat, Bharuch did not grant prayer made by the present petitioner. The prayer was that earlier the petitioner was serving with District Panchayat, Panchmahals at Godhara and that period of service should be counted in the service of the petitioner when he joined services at District Panchayat, Bharuch at Bharuch.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner was asked to point out as to whether the initial order of appointment, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-B, page No.35 dated 30.07.1980 mentions anywhere that, appointment is made with an understanding that period of his service with District Panchayat, Panchmahals at Godhara will be considered as that of with the District Panchayat Bharuch. In absence of any such mentioning in the appointment order, it is understood that the appointment was a fresh appointment with District Panchayat, Bharuch at Bharuch. District Panchayat Bharuch and District Panchayat Panchmahals, being two independent legal entities, unless it was specifically provided that with one District Panchayat will be treated as services with the another District Panchayat, the petitioner cannot ask for the same. Besides, it is too late in a day to ask for the same.

4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order passed by the District Development Officer is found to be without any error and hence, the petition is rejected."

(Emphasis supplied)

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9275/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026

undefined

9. Furthermore, the prayers which were made in the aforesaid writ petition, being Special Civil Application No.7712 of 2010, also need to be referred to by this Court; wherein in prayer clause (D) of that petition, the relief sought by the petitioner had a direct bearing on the prayer sought in this petition. The relevant prayer clause (D) of the said petition reads thus:

"D) issue appropriate writ, order or directions and be pleased to hold that the petitioner is entitled to and the respondents are required to consider the service rendered by the petitioner under District Panchayat, Panchmahals and further directions may kindly be issued upon the concerned respondents authorities to show the Date of Entry/joining as that of 21/4/1980 and after showing the aforesaid date, respondents authorities may kindly be directed to prepare the Seniority list of Additional Assistant Engineers and appropriate placement may kindly be ordered to be made in the seniority list of Additional Assistant Engineers;"

10. In light of the aforesaid decision of this Court, the prayer of the petitioner to consider his date of appointment as 21/04/1980, instead of 07/08/1980 is already rejected by this Court; as per the principle of res judicata, the petitioner cannot be allowed to re-agitate the very issue again by way of this petition.

11. In view of the foregoing discussion and reasons, I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the respondent and as such, there is no merit in the claim of the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.

(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) GAURAV J THAKER