[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Tushar M. Solanki vs Kandla Port Trust on 27 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16900/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16900 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
=============================================
TUSHAR M. SOLANKI & ORS.
Versus
KANDLA PORT TRUST
=============================================
Appearance:
MR MUKESH H RATHOD(2432) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 27/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Mukesh H. Rathod, learned advocate for the
petitioners and Mr. Yogi Gadhia, learned advocate for the
respondent.
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 and allow this
Special Civil Application.
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus /
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the
Respondent Kandla Port Trust to pay and grant the benefits of
Temporary Status along with benefits like amount of arrears,
Provident fund and Pensionary benefits, Earned Leave, Medical
Leave and Children Education Allowances and other applicable
allowances including financially up gradation through ACP
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16900/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
(Acceleration Carrier Progress) and MACP (Modified Acceleration
Carrier Progress) for the period of 08.08.2005 to 19.04.2012 in the
interest of justice."
SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE
3. The petitioners were initially appointed as ad hoc Junior
Engineers (Civil) after following the due procedure as per
recruitment rules by the respondent between 1998 and 2000.
As the respondent did not grant temporary status/
regularization in favour of the petitioners and other similarly
situated persons, they had raised an industrial dispute before
the Labour Court concerned, wherein as per Section 12(3) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, there was a settlement
arrived between parties on dated 08.08.2005.
3.1 As per the aforesaid settlement, the respondent agreed
to regularize the services of the petitioners and other similarly
situated persons as and when regular vacant posts become
available. It was also agreed that in the case of leftover Junior
Engineers (Civil) working on temporary ad hoc posts with the
respondent, they will be given temporary status and they will
also be regularized as and when there is a vacancy on a
regular basis, or as per the roster.
3.2 It appears that at the time of entering into the said
settlement, there were 13 Junior Engineers (Civil) working on
ad hoc posts, out of whom only two were made permanent in
the year 2006; the remaining 11 were not granted temporary
status as agreed by the respondent in the settlement. So,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16900/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
those remaining 11 Junior Engineers had approached this
Court by way of Special Civil Application Nos.10439, 10440
and 11450 of 2009, which came to be allowed by a common
CAV judgment by the learned Single Judge of this Court on
19.04.2012. The necessary directions were issued to the
respondent to consider the case of the petitioners for
regularization as and when there are vacant posts and till
then, the respective petitioners be given temporary status.
3.3 At the first instance, the respondent appears to have not
obeyed the aforesaid judgment passed by the learned Single
Judge of this Court, which forced those petitioners to file a
contempt petition being Misc. Civil Application No.1078 of
2013, and during its pendency, the respondent has passed the
order on 05.10.2013, whereby it has considered the status of
the present petitioners as temporary w.e.f. 08.08.2005. In
view of above, no further order came to be passed against the
respondent in the contempt proceedings.
3.4 Nonetheless, while passing the order dated 05.10.2013
by the respondent, though it had considered the status of the
petitioners as temporary w.e.f. 08.08.2005, but it did not
grant actual monetary benefits for a period between
08.08.2005 and 19.04.2012 except notional benefits. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the respondent, initially
the petitioners through their union made a grievance before
the respondent, but having not received any response from
the respondent, has approached this Court by way of this
petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16900/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS :
4. Mr.Rathod, learned advocate for the petitioners, would
submit that despite there being clear terms of settlement and
the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in
the aforesaid petitions, the respondent has deliberately not
granted full benefits of the settlement to the petitioners,
thereby violates the fundamental rights of the petitioners to
receive the service benefits.
4.1 Mr. Rathore, learned advocate, would further submit
that as per the terms of settlement, as and when regular
vacant posts arise, the senior-most Junior Engineer (Civil) will
be regularized within two months against the existing vacancy
and the leftover Junior Engineers (Civil) working on an ad hoc
basis will be given temporary status and they will also be
regularized as and when there is a vacancy on a regular post.
It is submitted that when such are the clear terms between
the parties, upon giving regularization benefit to the two
senior-most Junior Engineers (Civil) out of thirteen by the
respondent in the year 2006, there was no valid reason
available with the respondent not to grant the benefit of
temporary status to the petitioners, who undisputedly were
later on regularized in the service in the year 2013 onwards.
4.2 Mr. Rathod, learned advocate for the petitioners, would
strenuously submit that the learned Single Judge vide the
common judgment dated 19.04.2012 allowed all the petitions
by holding that the action of the respondent is absolutely
illegal, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India; thereby, all petitioners are entitled to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16900/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
relief as prayed for. It is submitted that as per the earlier
petitions, the petitioners did pray for consequential benefits to
be granted along with temporary status; non-granting of such
benefit to the petitioners by the respondent is per se illegal, in
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and ex-facie
disobeying the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court.
4.3 Mr. Rathod, learned advocate, would further submit that
in the impugned order dated 05.10.2013, no reasons were
assigned by the competent authority of the respondent to
justify its stand to grant only notional benefits w.e.f.
08.08.2005, instead of granting the entire monetary benefits
from said date. It is submitted that all petitioners without any
complaint honestly worked as Junior Engineers (Civil),
although as ad hoc, until they were regularized in their
services; there is no reason, much less any legal basis,
available to the respondent not to grant actual monetary
benefits of temporary status w.e.f. 08.08.2005 as granted to
the two senior-most Junior Engineers (Civil) when regularized
in their respective services in the year 2006.
4.4 Making the above submissions, Mr.Rathod, learned
advocate for the petitioners would urge this Court to allow the
present petition.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:
5. Per contra, Mr.Gadhia, learned advocate for the
respondent, has vehemently opposed this petition by making
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16900/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
the following submissions:
5.1 The settlement arrived at between the parties would not
suggest that upon regularization of the senior-most Junior
Engineers (Civil) by the respondent, the remaining Junior
Engineers (Civil) would get automatic benefit of temporary
status as alleged by the petitioners.
5.2 The learned Single Judge vide the common judgment
dated 19.04.2012 passed in the aforesaid petitions not
whispered about granting any actual monetary benefit and
arrears to be paid to the petitioners, though directed the
respondent to grant temporary status to the respective
petitioners.
5.3 The Contempt Bench in its orders dated 20.09.2013 and
21.10.2013 categorically recorded that in the absence of any
direction issued as regards to making payment of arrears
between 08.08.2005 and 19.04.2012, no fault can be found
with the respondent if such benefit was not granted while
passing the office order dated 05.10.2013.
5.4 The petitioners have approached this Court very late
seeking the actual monetary benefit as the order came to be
passed in the year 2013 and the monetary benefits which are
claimed in this petition are from 2005, which cannot be
granted.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16900/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
5.5 To buttress his argument, Mr.Gadhia, learned advocate
for the respondent has relied upon the following decision :
(i) Kandla Port Trust vs. Pushpa Bhairyani - 2004
(3) GLR 2681.
5.6 Making the above submissions, Mr.Gadhia, learned
advocate for the respondent would urge this Court to dismiss
this petition.
6. No other and further submissions have been made by
learned advocates for the respective parties.
ANALYSIS :
7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective
parties and after going through their pleadings and
documents, the following would emerge:
7.1 The petitioners were appointed as Junior Engineers
(Civil) on an ad hoc basis by the respondent between the
years 1998 and 2000. The petitioners, represented through
their union, had raised an industrial dispute before the Labour
Court concerned, thereby sought for regularization in their
respective services, wherein there was an amicable
settlement between the parties.
7.2 The terms of settlement between the parties read as
under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16900/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
"Terms of Settlement
i) The looking into the vacancy position and Roster. the Senior Junior
Engineers (Civil) working on Temporary Adhoc basis against
project/ regular vacant posts in KPT will be regularized within two
months against the existing vacancies.
ii) That the left-over Junior Engineers (Civil) working on temporary
Adhoc basis in KPT against project/ regular posts will be given
temporary status and they will also be regularized as and when
there will be vacancy on regular basis, or per roster."
7.3 It is not in dispute that the two senior-most Junior
Engineers (Civil) were regularized in their services in the year
2006 by the respondent, but temporary status was not
conferred upon the petitioners.
7.4 All petitioners had approached this Court by way of the
aforesaid writ petitions, which came to be allowed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its common CAV
judgment dated 19.04.2012. The relevant observations made
in the aforesaid judgment read thus:
"[7.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, more
particularly, when the settlement is entered into between the parties
during the course of conciliation and under Section 12(3) of the ID
Act which has a binding effect as an award and which is binding to
the parties as provided under Section 18 of the ID Act and
considering the fact that in fact respondent Nos.1 and 2 had partly
implemented and/or acted upon the settlement dated 08.08.2005
regularizing services of two Junior Engineers (Civil) out of 13
employees and in fact the respondent No.1 part trust also had
given temporary status to the petitioners with continuity for
more than two years after the settlement dated 08.08.2005,
the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not implementing
and/or acting as per the settlement dated 08.08.2005 is
absolutely illegal and discriminatory and violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India and therefore , petitioners are
entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16900/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
[7.1] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these
Special Civil Applications succeed and respondent Nos.1 and 2
herein are directed to implement and act as per the settlement
dated 08.08.2005 entered into under Section 12(3) of the ID Act and
to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization as and
when there are vacant posts and till then the respective petitioners
be given temporary status. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent in each of the petitions. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, no order as to costs."
(emphasis supplied)
7.5 The respondent, vide its order dated 05.10.2013, though
conferred the temporary status upon the petitioners w.e.f.
08.08.2005, but did not actually grant monetary benefits to
the petitioners for the period between 08.08.2005 and
19.04.2012.
7.6 It is true that the Contempt Bench, vide its orders dated
20.09.2013 and 21.10.2013 passed in Misc. Civil Application
No.1078 of 2013, did observe that there is no express order
by the learned Single Judge for payment of arrears to be given
from 08.08.2005 till 19.04.2012 and in the absence of a clear
direction, no further order was passed for alleged
breach/defiance of the order of this Court and accordingly, the
contempt proceeding was disposed of.
8. Upon appreciation of the aforesaid terms of settlement
arrived at between the parties and contentions of both sides,
it can be seen that as per the terms of settlement, upon
regularization of the senior-most Junior Engineer (Civil), the
leftover Junior Engineers (Civil) working on temporary ad hoc
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16900/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
posts with the respondent will be given temporary status and
they will also be regularized as and when there is a vacancy
on a regular basis; this would mean that when the senior-most
Junior Engineer (Civil) is regularized in service, at that
moment, at least temporary status requires to be conferred
upon left over Junior Engineers (Civil), i.e., the petitioners. As
can be seen from the aforesaid judgment passed by the
coordinate Bench of this Court on 19.04.2012 in the aforesaid
writ petitions, that not acted as per the aforesaid terms of
settlement is held to be illegal, discriminatory and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India; it was observed that the
petitioners are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
9. At this stage, I had called upon the learned advocates for
the respective parties to provide a copy of the aforesaid
petitions, whereby the prayers which were made in them can
be seen by this Court. The copy of Special Civil Application
No.10439 of 2009 was provided by Mr.Rathod, learned
advocate for the petitioners for ready perusal of this Court,
wherein the following prayers have been found:
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or a writ of
certiorari or in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction;
(i) declaring act of omission on the part of the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 by not implementing settlement dated
08.08.2005 arrived at between the petitioner-union and the
respondent No.1 under section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 produced at Annexure-F to this petition in its true
spirit and in totality to be illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory,
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16900/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
(ii) to direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, their subordinate
officers, servants to regularize services of the petitioner Nos.1
to 11 in the cadre of Junior Engineer (Civil) against available
vacancy with effect from the date of creation of such vacancy
and offer all other consequential and incidental benefits
thereto to the petitioners-incumbents; and
(iii) direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 its officers and
servants to confer status of temporary employee and grant all
consequential and incidental benefits thereto upon the left out
petitioners-incumbents, who are not regularized due to non-
availability of clear vacancy and awaiting turn in the matter of
regularization.
(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this
petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to;
(i) restrain the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, its subordinate
officers, servants from terminating / discontinuing services of
the petitioner Nos. 1 to 11; and further be pleased to direct
them to extend services of petitioner Nos.1 to 11 in the cadre
of Junior Engineer (Civil) with - all consequential benefits to
the said petitioners;
(ii) direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2, its subordinate officers,
servants etc. to pass appropriate order/s to implement
settlement dated 08.08.2005 at Annexure-F to the petition
extending benefit of the said settlement to the petitioner Nos. 1
to 11 in its letter and spirit and totality."
(emphasis supplied)
10. Having gone through the prayers made by the
petitioners, which were in fact allowed by the coordinate
Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment, as observed in
the last line of paragraph No.7 and opening para of 7.1 of said
judgement that, "7......petitioners are entitled to the relief as prayed for.
7.1.........all these Special Civil Applications succeed and respondent Nos.1
and 2 herein are directed to implement and act as per the settlement dated
08.08.2005 entered into under Section 12(3) of the ID Act........ .", then the
respondent was supposed to grant consequential benefits
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16900/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
when a direction was issued by this Court to implement and
act as per the settlement dated 08.08.2005 and consider the
case of the petitioners for regularization as and when there
are vacant posts and till then, the petitioners be given
temporary status.
11. It is not in dispute between the parties that the
petitioners had worked in the post of Junior Engineer (Civil)
albeit on an ad hoc basis from 08.08.2005 till 19.04.2012. But
there is nothing to suggest that upon conferring the status as
temporary to the petitioners, any extra work had to be
discharged by them. The office order dated 05.10.2013 issued
by the respondent did not cite any reason as to why only
notional benefits were granted between 08.08.2005 and
19.04.2012, even though temporary status was conferred
upon the petitioners w.e.f. 08.08.2005.
11.1 The stance of the respondent that as the learned Single
Judge of this Court had not specifically expressed anything
about payment of arrears while allowing the petitions on
19.04.2012, so it has not considered to grant such benefit. In
fact, the respondent has totally misconstrued the aforesaid
judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court, inasmuch
as, the learned Single Judge in terms initially criticized the
action of the respondent in so many words and ultimately held
that the action of the respondent in not implementing the
terms of settlement dated 08.08.2005 is absolutely illegal,
discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16900/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
India, thus, allowed the aforesaid petitions.
11.2 So far as the argument of Mr.Gadhia, learned advocate
for the respondent, that the Contempt Bench of this Court had
not accepted the submission of the petitioners that no arrears
have been paid by respondent, having been observed that the
learned Single Judge had not expressly observed to pay
arrears to the petitioners concerned, then no fault can be
found with the respondent, if not paid it. The Contempt Bench
was only confronted with the application filed under the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act for defiance of the
said judgement of learned Single Judge. When there was a
substantial compliance of the order/direction of this Court by
the respondent, it might have dropped the contempt
proceeding initiated against the respondent with certain
observations. At the same time, having referred hereinabove
the observations of the learned Single Judge passed in the
aforesaid judgment and the prayers which were made in the
aforesaid petitions (which possibly were not brought to the
notice of the Contempt Bench), it would clearly indicate that
while allowing all these petitions, the coordinate Bench of this
Court in fact held that the petitioners are entitled to the
reliefs as prayed for and all the said petitions succeed.
11.3 It further requires to be noted that there is no express
observation or any assertion made by the coordinate Bench
while allowing the aforesaid petitions that the petitioners
would not be entitled to receive arrears for the period from
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16900/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
08.08.2005 to 19.04.2012, as the case may be. In light of the
aforesaid, the submissions so canvassed by Mr.Gadhia,
learned advocate is not appeal to this Court to take any
different view than the one going to be taken by this Court in
the matter.
12. In view of the aforesaid, the respondent could not have
taken shelter of the said judgement of the learned Single
Judge of this Court by submitting that in absence of any
direction issued to pay arrears, it was not paid to the
petitioners. It was rather incumbent upon the respondent
being State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India to act
in just and fair manner. When its action is found to be
discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India, and having found not acted as per binding settlement,
in those circumstances, it was bounden duty of the respondent
to pay the benefit as per agreed terms.
13. So far last limb of the argument of Mr.Gadhia, learned
advocate that there was a delay on the part of the petitioners
in approaching this Court is concern, as such there is neither
gross nor inordinate delay on the part of the petitioners,
inasmuch as, the petitioner has filed this petition on
27.09.2016, whereas the office order issued by the respondent
on 05.10.2013. The petition was filed well within 3 years from
the cause of action, i.e., 05.10.2013, as the respondent has not
granted actual monetary benefit to the petitioners, when it
issued the said order on 05.10.2013. The cited judgement of
this Court in the case of Pushpa Bhairyani (supra) would
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16900/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
not helpful to the respondent.
13.1 In any case, this Court, in the earlier round of
litigation, has already struck down the illegal action of the
respondents, having found it to be discriminatory and violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the
matter, it cannot be gainsaid that the respondent cannot deny
the monetary benefits for the period between 08.08.2005 and
19.04.2012, when it conferred temporary status upon the
petitioners vide its order dated 05.10.2013.
14. In view of the aforesaid, I am not at all impressed by any
submissions of Mr. Gadhia, learned advocate for the
respondent. Hence, it is hereby rejected.
15. This Court is of the view that in earlier round of
litigation, when the action of the respondent of not conferring
the temporary status upon the petitioners at the relevant
point of time was held to be illegal, discriminatory and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as
contrary to the agreed terms of statutory settlement, then the
respondent cannot escape from its obligation to pay the
monetary benefits to the petitioners upon conferring the
temporary status upon them w.e.f. 08.08.2005, especially with
open eyes having entered into the settlement as per the
aforesaid terms.
CONCLUSION :
16. As a result of the foregoing observations, discussion and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16900/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
reasons, the following is the inescapable conclusion:
16.1 The petitioners are entitled to receive all monetary
benefits, having been conferred temporary status w.e.f.
08.08.2005. The respondent has wrongly denied the monetary
benefits for the period between 08.08.2005 and 19.04.2012 to
the petitioners as available to the temporary Junior Engineers
(Civil).
16.2 Accordingly, the respondent is hereby directed to
calculate and pay all monetary benefits as available to Junior
Engineers (Civil) with temporary status to the petitioners for
the period between 08.08.2005 and 19.04.2012.
16.3 Consequently, all other consequential benefits flowing
therefrom, including the difference in pay, pension and other
retirement benefits, shall be paid to the petitioners on or
before 30.04.2026.
16.4 If the respondent fails to pay the aforesaid amount, the
petitioners are entitled to receive such benefits with 6%
interest from 01.05.2026 till the actual realization from the
respondent.
17. In view of the foregoing conclusion, the present petition
is allowed. Rule is made absolute, to the aforesaid extent.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
