[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Bharatkumar Keshavlal Solanki - ... vs State Of Gujarat on 20 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=============================================
BHARATKUMAR KESHAVLAL SOLANKI - ADVOCATE
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR.NISARG P
RAVAL(7262) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS FORUM SUKHADWALA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 20/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel assisted
by Mr.Nisarg Raval, learned advocate for the petitioner,
Ms.Forum Sukhadwala, learned AGP appearing for the
respondent State and Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate for
respondent No.2.
1.1 With the consent of learned advocates for the respective
parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
"[A] Your Lordships may be pleased to admit the present
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
petition;
[B] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or certiorari or a writ in the nature of
mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated
4.5.2013 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the
order dated 14.12.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority;
[C] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or certiorari or a writ in the nature of
mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction directing the respondent-Corporation to pay all
the pay and allowances applicable and due to the
petitioner during the period of termination from 17.3.2006
to 1.12.2009 and to release two increments wrongly
withheld by the respondent-Corporation;"
3. At the outset, Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel,
would submit that despite the petitioner having raised a
submission before the Appellate Authority of the respondent
No.2 - Gujarat State Civil Supply Corporation (hereinafter
referred to as "the Corporation") in respect of considering
the period from 17/3/2006 to 01/12/2009 as period in service
and to grant all consequential benefits in favor of the
petitioner, neither was it appreciated nor were any reasons
recorded by the Appellate Authority to deny such submission.
According to Mr.Mehta, learned Senior Counsel, the matter
requires to be remanded back to the appellate authority to
consider such aspects.
3.1 At the same time, under the instructions of his client,
Mr.Mehta, learned Senior Counsel, would make a conscious
statement that, so far as the imposition of penalty by the
disciplinary authority is concerned, i.e., stoppage of two
annual increments with future effect, the petitioner is not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
challenging such penalty.
4. Per contra, Mr.Munshaw, learned advocate for the
Corporation, is not in a position to substantiate the aforesaid
submission, so far as the fact that such submission, though
raised before the Appellate Authority as recorded in Para 9(l)
(g)(iii), the same was not dealt with by the appellate authority.
5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective
parties and upon perusal of the impugned order dated
14/12/2015 passed by the Managing Director of the
Corporation, it appears that despite the specific ground raised
by the petitioner herein as regards granting pay and other
allowances for the period between 17/3/2006 and 01/12/2009,
the appellate authority, though it recorded such statements in
its impugned order, has not dealt with the same. In that view
of the matter, the matter is required to be remanded back to
the Managing Director - Appellate Authority of the
Corporation to consider the aforesaid submission of the
petitioner.
6. At the same time, as observed and recorded in the
statement of Mr.Mehta, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner, that so far as the imposition of penalty by the
disciplinary authority is concerned (stoppage of two
increments with future effect), the petitioner is not
challenging the same; so, the appellate authority, while
examining the aforesaid submission, need not again look into
the penalty already imposed by the disciplinary authority.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
7. In view of the foregoing reasons, I pass the following
order:
7.1 The impugned order dated 14/12/2015 passed by the
Managing Director of the Respondent No.2 - Corporation is
hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded
back to him.
7.2 Upon remand of the matter, the Appellate Authority of
the Corporation shall issue a notice to the petitioner within
one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order
for granting him a personal opportunity of hearing. After
hearing the petitioner and upon consideration of his additional
written submissions, if any, the appellate authority is directed
to decide the grievance of the petitioner so far as to the grant
of pay and other allowances for the period between
17/03/2006 and 01/12/2009 by way of a reasoned order within
a period of three months from today.
7.3 Needless to state that this Court has neither gone into
nor examined the merits of the matter. So, the appellate
authority of the Corporation is required to look into the
grievance of the petitioner independently.
8. In view of the foregoing conclusion, the present petition
is hereby partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent. There will be no order as to costs.
9. Direct service is permitted.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
