[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Vijay B Shah vs State Of Gujarat Thro Secretary on 27 February, 2026

                                                                                                                         NEUTRAL CITATION




                           C/SCA/16751/2012                                             JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026

                                                                                                                         undefined




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16751 of 2012


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
                      ==========================================================

                                   Approved for Reporting                           Yes              No
                                                                                                     ✓
                      ==========================================================
                                                   VIJAY B SHAH
                                                       Versus
                                      STATE OF GUJARAT THRO SECRETARY & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      Appearance:
                      MS. SHIVANI J. BAROT FOR MR PA JADEJA(3726) for the Petitioner(s) No.
                      1
                      MS. DHRUTI PANDYA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
                      MR. VARUN K. PATEL (3802) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
                      RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
                      ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

                                                             Date : 27/02/2026
                                                               JUDGMENT

1. Heard Ms. Shivani J. Barot, learned advocate

appearing on behalf of Mr. P.A. Jadeja, learned advocate

for the petitioner, Mr. Varun K. Patel, learned advocate

for the respondent No.3 and Ms. Dhruti Pandya, learned

AGP for the respondents - State, at length.

2. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226

of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking following

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/16751/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026

undefined

reliefs:

"(A) This Hon'ble Court, be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the Respondents to pay the petitioner Leave Encashment for 300 days on the basis of the last salary drawn along with interest from the date of resignation from service i.e. 30.4.2006, at the rate of 9% per annum.

(B) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(C) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to impose costs upon the Respondents for causing hardship to the petitioner in making delayed payments."

3. It is not in dispute between the parties that the

petitioner was appointed by respondent No. 3 on a

regular pay scale after due process. Having rendered

services for about 17 years, the petitioner retired from

service on 30.04.2006. At the time of his retirement, the

petitioner was not paid the benefit of leave encashment

by the respondents. Therefore, he has approached this

Court by way of this petition.

4. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:

4.1 At the outset, Ms. Barot, learned advocate

appearing for the petitioner, would state that the issue

germane in the matter is squarely covered by the

decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/16751/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026

undefined

of Shailaben M. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat rendered in

Special Civil Application No. 9251 of 2012 dated 25.04.2018. It is submitted that the petitioner was

regularly appointed by respondent No. 3 and it is a

grant-in-aid institution of respondent No. 1 - State,

whereby all rules and regulations of the State would be

applicable to the employees of respondent No. 3. It is

further submitted that once respondent No. 3 is one of

the arms of the State, it was the duty of respondent No.

3 to pass the benefit of leave encashment to the

petitioner as is available to other retired government

employees.

4.2 Making the above submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner would request this Court to allow the

present writ petition.

5. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:

5.1 Per contra, Ms. Pandya, learned AGP, would state that except for giving grant to respondent No. 3, there is

as such nothing on record to show that all rules,

regulations, and benefits which are available to

government employees would be available to employees of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/16751/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026

undefined

respondent No. 3. Nonetheless, learned AGP is not in a

position to controvert the fact that this Court, vide its

order dated 25.04.2018 passed in Special Civil Application

No. 9251 of 2012, has directed the State to pay the

benefit of leave encashment to employees of respondent

No. 3; yet, the learned AGP, upon instructions, states

that the aforesaid judgment is challenged before the

Division Bench of this Court by way of Letters Patent

Appeal No. 726 of 2019.

5.2 Mr. Patel, learned advocate for respondent No. 3,

would submit that the Division Bench of this Court in

the case of State of Gujarat and Others Vs. Dharmendrakumar Jodhraj Jain and Others rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 653 of 2016 dated 03.09.2025 already decided the issue germane to the matter and has

held that in absence of any Rules, employee of that

Scouts is not entitled to receive leave encashment.

5.3 Making the above submissions, learned AGP and

Mr. Patel, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.

3, would request this Court to dismiss the present writ

petition.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/16751/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026

undefined

6. No other and further submissions have been made

by the learned advocates for the respective parties.

ANALYSIS:

7. Having heard the learned advocates for the

respective parties and upon perusal of the pleadings and

documents available on record, it requires to be noted

here that the facts of the case as considered hereinabove

are not in dispute that the petitioner was regularly

appointed employee of respondent No. 3. At the same

time, the Court requires to examine one aspect, as to

whether in absence of any rule, can petitioner be entitled

for leave encashment.

8. The aforesaid issue germane to the matter is squarely

covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court against the petitioner in the case of

Dharmendrakumar Jodhraj Jain (supra) , whereby it is observed and held thus:

"2. The present Letters Patent Appeal, filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, 1865, is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.04.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition, whereby the learned Single Judge, while allowing the petition, directed the authority to grant the leave salary for a period of 72

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/16751/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026

undefined

days.

6. It is not in dispute that the original petitioner, who passed away during the pendency of the present appeal, was an employee of the Gujarat State Bharat Scouts and Guides, which is not governed by the Rules applicable to State Government employees.

7. It is also noticed by us that the entire case of the original petitioner was premised on the judgment dated 17.07.2013 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.16122 of 2005, wherein similarly situated employees of the Gujarat State Bharat Scouts and Guides, who claimed leave encashment and gratuity, were directed to make representations to the respondents. While the claim for leave encashment was ultimately rejected by the State Government and gratuity was granted.

8. Under these circumstances, in the absence of any Rules governing the grant of leave encashment to employees of the Gujarat State Bharat Scouts and Guides, the rules applicable to State Government employees cannot be directly applied to them. Hence, the present appeal succeeds. The same is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby quashed and set aside."

(emphasis supplied)

9. In view of the aforesaid, the issue germane in the

matter is no longer remains res intergra as decided by

this Court in the aforesaid decision. It may be true that

the judgment dated 25.04.2018 passed by the Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 9343

of 2013 is challenged by the State by way of Letters

Patent Appeal No. 726 of 2019, but there is no stay

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/16751/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026

undefined

granted in favour of the State. Nonetheless, in view of