[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Ghanshyam Parshottambhai Dabhi vs Gujarat Maritime Board on 22 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2154 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT sd/-
==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================
GHANSHYAM PARSHOTTAMBHAI DABHI & ORS.
Versus
GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD & ANR.
==========================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/
REPRESTENTATIVES for the Petitioner(s) No. 12,18,19,5,7
MS HARSHAL N PANDYA(3141) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12.1,12.2,12.3,12.4,13,14,15,16,17,18.1,18.2,18.3,19.1,19.2,
19.3,19.4,2,20,21,22,3,4,5.1,5.2,5.3,6,7.1,7.2,7.3,8,9
MR NIKUNT K RAVAL(5558) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 22/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Harshal N. Pandya appearing for
the petitioners and learned advocate Ms. Dharmistha Raval,
learned advocate for Mr. Nikunt K. Raval, learned advocate for
respondent No.1.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
2. With the consent of all the parties, the matter was taken up for
final hearing. Hence, issue RULE. Learned advocate Ms.
Dharmistha Raval, for Mr. Nikunt K Raval, learned advocate
waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent
No.1.
3. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for holding
and directing the respondent authority to grant the petitioners
the benefit of second higher pay scale upon their completion of
fifteen years of service from the date of receipt of first higher
pay scale, in light of Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007
and to direct the respondent authorities to grant second higher
pay scale of Rs. 5200-20,200 (GP-1800) to the petitioners from
their due date with all consequential benefits including arrears
and consequential fixation of pay and pension with appropriate
revision along with interest.
4. It is the case of the petitioners as stated by Ms. Pandya, learned
advocate, that the petitioners were appointed as Khalasi in the
Gujarat Maritime Board on different dates between 1976 and
1979, they were promoted to the post of Seamen between the
year 1977-1981. Thereafter, pursuant to the Government
Resolution dated 16.08.1994, the petitioners were granted first
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
higher pay scale from their due dates on completion of a year,
and thereafter, in the year 2007, Government's policy of
granting higher pay scale upon completion of 9, 18 and 27 years
of service was modified vide Government Resolution dated
02.07.2007 and a new policy of giving higher pay scale upon
completion of 12 and 24 years of services was introduced.
However, as per Clause 4 (B) of the new policy vide Government
Resolution dated 02.07.2007, if a person has already received
the first higher pay scale on completion of 9 years, his second
higher pay scale would become due on completion of 15 years
from the date on which he got the first higher pay scale on
completion of 9 years so as to ensure that he meets with the
criteria of getting second higher pay scale upon completion of 24
years of service from the date of becoming eligible for getting
second higher pay scale as per the Government Resolution dated
02.07.2007.
5. Considering the fact that the petitioners got their first higher
pay scale upon completion of 9 years, the petitioners became
eligible for second higher pay scale on completion of 15 years
from their respective due dates.
6. Considering the representations, proposal was sent, however,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
Head Office of Gujarat Maritime Board, communicated to
respondent No.2 that as the petitioners have already availed the
benefit of one promotion and one higher pay scale, they are not
entitled to get the benefit of higher pay upon completion of 12
and 24 years of service and accordingly, proposal was returned
by letters dated 19.10.2011 & 03.12.2011. Since many other
Seamen granted the benefits of higher pay-scale, the petitioners
approached the respondents agitating their grievance. Finally,
they approached this Court by way of this petition seeking
second higher pay scale.
7. During the pendency of the petition, other similarly situated
persons who were also denied the benefits of second higher pay
scale preferred the writ petitions being Special Civil Application
No. 10318 of 2018 with Special civil Application No. 10320 of
2018 in case of Keshubhai Vashrambhai Bhuva V/s. Gujarat
Maritime Board, the same are decided on 16.01.2020 by the
Coordinate Bench, whereby while interpreting the Clause No. (4)
(a) and (b) of the aforesaid government resolution, the
Coordinate Bench in its order dated 16.01.2020 considered the
case of similarly situated persons and allowed the petitions and
directed the respondent to grant the benefits of second higher
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
pay scale to the petitioners of those petitions.
8. The aforesaid order was carried in appeal by the respondent
herein - Gujarat Maritime Board being Letters Patent Appeal No.
504 of 2020. However, the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal was
dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated
09.09.2020 and therefore, Gujarat Maritime Board carried both
the aforesaid orders before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way
of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 1284 of 2021. However, the
said Special Leave to Appeal also was dismissed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 08.02.2021. Ultimately, the
order qua those petitioners was implemented by Gujarat
Maritime Board and thereafter, one more employee having
similar issue preferred the writ petition being Special Civil
Application No. 13416 of 2020 and others alongwith other
petitioners on the same issue. Those set of petitions also were
allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment
dated 08.02.2022 and the respondents have implemented that
order as well as stated by learned advocate Ms. Pandya.
9. It is in this background, according to learned advocate Ms.
Pandya when the benefits are granted to the other similarly
situated persons and the orders are implemented qua them after
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
having failed till the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the present
petitioners' case which is almost identical to the case of those
petitioners is required to be considered positively and by
allowing the petition, the respondents may be directed to grant
the benefits of second higher pay scale to the present petitioners
as well.
10. Though learned advocate Ms. Raval, appearing for the Gujarat
Maritime Board vehemently opposed the petition, she could not
point out anything on merits which would compel this Court to
take a different view or on facts that the case of the present
petitioners is different than the case of other persons who were
the petitioners of that petitions mentioned in foregoing
paragraphs and are decided against Gujarat Maritime Board.
Therefore, learned advocate Ms. Raval submitted that though the
right is accrued in favour of the petitioners as per the case of the
petitioners themselves in the year 2010 whereas the petition is
preferred in the year 2022 and therefore, there is a gross delay
of 12 years in preferring the petition and therefore, the petition
is required to be dismissed on the ground of delay.
11. By making the above submissions, she prayed for dismissal of
the petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
12. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the
record. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties as
well as considering the ground of delay agitated by learned
advocate Ms. Raval, the Court is of the view that the right to
avail the second higher pay scale was accrued in favour of the
petitioners on completion of 15 years' service, after they were
granted the benefits of first higher pay scale. The petitioners
asked for grant of second higher pay scale was not entertained
by letters dated 19.10.2011 and 03.12.2011 by the respondents.
However, the aforesaid right is flowing in respect of original
Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 which was
subsequently modified vide Government Resolution dated
02.07.2007 and therefore, in view of Clause 4 (2) (B) of
Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007, the petitioner is
claiming second higher pay scale on completion of 15 years'
service from the date on which the petitioners were granted first
higher pay scale. The aforesaid right being an accrued right, the
denial of aforesaid right to the petitioners, all throughout would
constitute a continuous cause of action and therefore, the aspect
of delay would not come in the way of the present petitioners.
13. Further in this petition, from the entire paper-book, learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
advocate Ms. Raval could not point out that the petitioners are
not eligible or entitled for second higher pay scale and hence,
the letters dated 19.10.2011 & 03.12.2011 holding the
petitioners ineligible for second higher pay scale, are just, legal
and proper. In absence of any material to indicate that the
petitioners are ineligible to claim the second higher pay scale
when the right has already accrued in favour of the petitioners
by virtue of above referred Government Resolution, the delay
would certainly not come in the way of the present petitioners
and the contention of learned Ms. Raval to dismiss the petition
on the ground of delay shall not be accepted and accordingly,
rejected.
14. Apart from aforesaid, the petitioner is found to be entitled to
receive the benefit of the 2nd higher grade pay-scale, the failure
on the part of the respondent - Board to pay this benefit violates
the fundamental right of the petitioner to receive the requisite
pay scale. It is trite law that when the impugned action of the
respondent - State is found to be violative of the fundamental
right of the citizen - petitioner, the principle of estoppel, waiver,
delay/laches etc. would not come to the rescue of the State (in
present case- respondent-Board). { See - Basheshwar Nath v.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
Commr. of Income-tax, Delhi, (1959) Supp (1) SCR 528: AIR 1959
SC 149}.
15. Now, if I consider the case of the petitioners vice versa case of
other similarly situated persons who also preferred the petitions
before this Court, learned advocate Ms. Raval could not point out
that the case of the present petitioners is different from the case
of those petitioners or that the issue is not squarely covered by
the decision of this Court in case of Keshubhai Vashrambhai
Bhuva (supra) wherein vide order dated 16.01.2020, the
Coordinate Bench of this Court held that the petitioner of that
petition is entitled to have second higher pay scale despite
availing two promotions and one higher pay scale. The aforesaid
view taken by the Coordinate Bench was confirmed upto the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the instant case, the only ground
to deny the petitioners the benefits of second higher pay scale
was that the petitioners were given one promotion and one
higher pay scale and only on that ground the aforesaid benefits
of second higher pay scale was denied to the petitioners.
16. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the case of the petitioners is
required to be considered in light of the case already decided on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
16.01.2020 in case of Keshubhai Vashrambhai Bhuva (Supra).
17. It is true that petitioners have approached very late by this
petition as said after 12 years from accrual of their right to
receive 2nd higher pay scale than this Court could have restricted
the entitlement to the differential amount and arrears of the
amount would have been directed to be paid from three years
prior to filing of the present petition till its payment. But, due to
cited decisions and especially other similarly situated persons
though approached late like the petitioners herein have been
granted entire benefits without any restriction by the
respondent-Board, considering this peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, I am also not like to restrict the
benefits, as aforesaid.
18. It would be apt to refer few paras of the aforesaid judgment in
the case of Keshubhai Vashrambhai Bhuva (Supra) while noting
the submissions of learned advocate for the respondents, the
Coordinate Bench has observed in paragraph no. 8 to 13 as
under:-
"8. Ms.Sejal Mandavia learned counsel for the
respondent Board through her affidavit-in-reply would
submit that though the service details of the
petitioners are not disputed, the petitioners are not
entitled to the benefit of Second Higher Grade Scale.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
She would rely on the Government Resolution dated
16.08.1994 to contend that the resolution specifically
provides in Clause-3 thereof that in case an employee
receives two or more promotions, he would not be
entitled to the benefit of the higher grade scale. She
would further submit that the petitions are barred by
gross delay and laches. She would submit that the
petitioners have retired in the year 2012 and have
approached this Court more than six years after such
retirement and are praying for benefits after 11 years
from the date of their entitlement and the petitions
therefore must be dismissed.
9. Having considered the submissions of the learned
advocates for the parties, what needs to be adjudged is
whether since the petitioners have earned two
promotions and one Higher Grade Scale, they can be
deprived of the benefit of the Second Higher Grade
Scale.
10. It is in this context that Clause 2, sub-clauses (2),
(3) and (4) need to be read. When sub-clauses (2) and
(3) are read, they make it clear that only when a
beneficiary of the First Higher Grade Scale on
completion of 12 years of service in accordance with
the Resolution of 02.07.2007 is given such benefit, he is
entitled to the benefit of the Second Higher Grade
Scale on completion of further 12 years of service. This
is subject to a qualification that such an incumbent has
not earned more than one promotion and/or First
Higher-Grade Scale.
11. When in this context, sub-clauses (4)(a) and (b) are
read, they specifically provide that when an incumbent
earns his first higher scale on completion of nine years
of service in accordance with the Government
Resolution dated 16.08.1994, he shall earn the Second
Higher Grade Scale on completion of 15 years
thereafter. There are no riders in the clause that the
earning of promotion and/or a higher grade scale would
disentitle the incumbent of earning the Second Higher
Grade Scale after the First Higher Grade Scale of nine
years in accordance with the resolution dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
16.08.1994.
Reading of the communication dated 12.09.2014
addressed by the Gujarat Maritime Board asking for its'
opinion and the stand of the Government as is evident
from the Finance Department's communications dated
04.03.2008 and 22.10.2014 make it clear that
interpreting sub-clause 4(b) of Clause-2 of the
resolution, the stand of the State is that one who has
earned the First Higher Grade Scale on completion of
nine years of service in accordance with the resolution
dated 16.08.1994, is entitled to the Second Higher
Grade Scale in accordance with the Government
Resolution dated 02.07.2007 after completing 15 years
thereafter. This of course is subject to the incumbents
satisfying other conditions of the Government
Resolution dated 16.08.1994.
12. Keeping these clarifications in mind, the petitioners
are entitled to the reliefs prayed for and therefore, the
respondents are directed to grant Second Higher
Grade Scale of Rs.9300-34800/-, G.P. Rs.4400/- to the
petitioners from their due dates with all consequential
benefits including arrears and consequential fixation of
pay and pension.
13. The petitions are allowed."
(emphasis supplied)
19. The aforesaid decision was carried in appeal and confirmed by
the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.09.2020 in
Letters Patent Appeal No. 504 of 2020 in case of Gujarat
Maritime Board V/s. Damjibhai Jerambhai Akbari wherein in
paragraph nos. 2 and 3, the Division Bench of this Court has
observed as under:-
"2. The learned Single Judge, after considering the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
relevant Government Resolutions dated 16th August
1994, 2nd July 2007 and other clarifications issued by
the Gujarat Maritime Board and the State Government,
as also the opinion given by the State Government,
came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner
(respondent herein) was entitled to the second Higher
Grade Scale as per the Government Resolution dated
2nd July 2007 read with earlier Government Resolution
dated 16th August 1994. It is admitted fact that the
petitioner came to be appointed in 1978, thereafter,
got first promotion on 10th September 1980 as Senior
Clerk, from the post of Junior Clerk with effect from
26th December 1983. Thereafter, in 1992, upon
completing 9 years of service in the cadre of Senior
Clerk, he was granted the first Higher Grade Scale.
Later on, in 2005, the petitioner was given promotion
as Head Clerk in the same Pay Scale which was given
to him as Higher Grade Scale in 1992. Thus, it is clear
that the Higher Grade Scale given in 1992 and
promotion in 2005 are in the same Pay Scale. Even
from 1992, the writ petitioner has continued in the
same Pay Scale and as such, under the Government
Resolution referred above, he was entitled to next
Higher Grade Scale after completing 15 years of
service which would be available to him in 2007. The
learned Single Judge has thus, extended the benefit
correctly.
3. In view of the above, we do not find any error in the
order of the learned Single Judge warranting
interference in this appeal. The same is accordingly
dismissed. Consequently, the connected Civil
Application stands disposed of."
(emphasis supplied)
20. Thereafter, though the respondents carried the aforesaid order
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave to
Appeal No. 1284 of 2021, the same was dismissed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.02.2021 meaning
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
thereby, the view taken by the Coordinate Bench was
confirmed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
21. It was pointed out during the course of the submissions by Ms.
Pandya, learned advocate, that not only the aforesaid decision
is implemented by the respondent - Board but subsequently,
one more petitioner Viz. Urvashiben Umeshchandra Thanki
who was also similarly situated person as compared to the
present petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.
13416 of 2020. While deciding the aforesaid petition alongwith
other group of the petition, the Coordinate Bench in similarly
set of facts held that those petitioners are also entitled to
second higher pay scale vide judgment dated 08.02.2022 and
the respondent - Board has not even challenged the aforesaid
judgment and in fact has implemented the aforesaid judgment
by granting the second higher pay scale to the petitioners of
that group of the petition.
22. The aforesaid facts are undisputed as even learned advocate
Ms. Raval also could not dispute the aforesaid facts and
therefore, in light of the facts that the above decisions squarely
cover the issue on hand and as the identically similarly situated
persons have succeeded in their challenge and have been
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2154/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
granted second higher pay scale, there is no reason for this
Court to take a different view more particularly when the facts
are undisputed. Accordingly, the present petition is succeeded.
23. It is held that the present petitioners are entitled to have
second higher pay scale on completion of 15 years from the
date on which they were granted the benefit of first higher pay
scale shown in the table at Annexure-A and the respondents
are directed to grant the second higher pay scale to the
petitioners at the earliest by calculating the arrears and all
other consequential benefits but in any case not later than
three months from the date of receipt of this order. In case of
any delay beyond a period of three months from the date of
receipt of the order, the respondents shall pay the interest @
of 6% on the entire amount to the petitioners.
24. In view of the foregoing observations, discussion and reasons,
the petition is allowed in the peculiar facts and not to be
treated as precedent. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
Lalji Desai
