[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Jitalben Vinodchandra Pandya vs State Of Gujarat on 16 January, 2026

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                           C/SCA/967/2018                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026

                                                                                                               undefined




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 967 of 2018


                     FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                     HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT

                     ==========================================================

                                   Approved for Reporting                    Yes           No
                                                                                            ✓
                     ==========================================================
                                            JITALBEN VINODCHANDRA PANDYA
                                                         Versus
                                                STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                     ==========================================================
                     Appearance:
                     MR DIPAN DESAI(2481) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                     ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
                     Respondent(s) No. 1
                     MS FORUM BIMAL SUKHADWALA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT
                     PLEADER/PP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                     RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
                     =============================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT

                                                         Date : 16/01/2026

                                                        ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr.Dipan Desai, learned Advocate for the petitioner

and Ms. Forum Sukhadwala, learned Assistant Government

Pleader for the respondent No.1-State, at length.

2. The present writ petition is filed under Articles 14, 19 and 226

of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026

undefined

"(A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.06.2017 passed by the respondent No.2-Director, Social Defence, Gujarat State annexed at Annexure-A to the petition.

(B) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, quashing and setting aside the action of the respondent authorities in appointing the petitioner afresh vide order dated 17.07.2017 without considering the earlier services of seven years rendered by the petitioner.

(C) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order directions directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner as having successful passed the CCC exam and thereby be pleased to direct the respondent to give all benefits including that of promotion considering the petitioner to have been appointed from 19.01.2010.

(D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 22.06.2017 passed by the respondent No.2-Director, Social Defence, Gujarat State annexed at Annexure-A to the petition.

(E) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026

undefined

further relief/s as deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice."

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER :

3. At the outset, Mr. Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner,

has stated that the issue involved in the present petition is

squarely covered by judgment and order dated 12.12.2023

passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil

Application No.10011 of 2018.

3.1. Mr. Desai, learned advocate would state that the impugned

order dated 22.06.2017 passed by the Director, Social Defence,

Gujarat State was a common order whereby the respondent-

Director had terminated the services of the petitioner herein so

also other two employees, namely, Smt. R.K. Meda and Shri

M.V.Muniya on the ground that they have not passed CCC

Examination within the stipulated time period. It is submitted

that said Smt. R.K.Meda had approached this Court by way of

the aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 10011 of 2018,

wherein, the Coordinate Bench of this Court by way of oral

order dated 12.12.2023 has allowed the petition and has set

aside the very impugned order of termination dated 22.06.2017

qua the said petitioner.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026

undefined

3.2. Mr. Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit

that the facts of the aforesaid petition and the present petition

are identical, except only one difference in the case of said Smt.

R.K.Meda and that of the present petitioner. In a case of said

Smt. R.K.Meda, she was terminated pursuant to the impugned

order and thereafter reinstated in service on passing the CCC

examination vide order dated 24.11.2017, whereas, the present

petitioner was never relieved from duty and continued to work

even after passing of the impugned order dated 22.06.2017. It is

submitted that the petitioner worked until 17.07.2017, i.e.,

when fresh appointment order was passed by the respondent-

Director, Social Defence, State of Gujarat. Therefore, there is

no break in service in the case of the petitioner. Since the

directions issued by the Coordinate Bench in the said Special

Civil Application No.10011 of 2018 in para no. 9.1 with

regards to giving notional benefits from the date of termination

till reinstatement would not be required to be issued in the

present case as there is not break in service in the present case.

It is further submitted that the petitioner would be entitled to

receive actual benefits.

3.3. Mr. Desai, learned advocate has stated at the bar that the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026

undefined

aforesaid judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court has

been accepted by the State authorities and benefit has been

given to the said employee - Smt. R.K.Meda.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT :

4. Ms. Forum Sukhadwala, learned AGP is unable to dispute the

aforesaid factual position, namely that the present petition is

covered by judgment and order dated 12.12.2023 rendered by

the coordinate bench in Special Civil Application No. 10011 of

2018 and also that the petitioner herein was not actually

relieved from his service. Rather the respondents unable to

dispute that the petitioner did not continue in service and not

worked upon the impugned order of the termination of service.

It is also not disputed that the aforesaid judgment of the

coordinate bench has been accepted by the respondent

authorities in the case of Smt. R.K.Meda.

5. No other and further submissions are being made.

ANALYSIS :

6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties

and after going through the pleadings and documents produced

on record by the parties, it remain an undisputed fact that

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026

undefined

service of the petitioner as well as said Smt. R.K.Meda were

terminated by the respondent vide its impugned order dated

22.06.2017 was challenged by said Smt.R.K.Meda before this

Court by way of writ petition being Special Civil Application

No.10011 of 2018. As per the submissions, the said petition was

allowed by the by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide the

judgment and order dated 12.12.2023, thereby the impugned

order dated 22.06.2017, qua Smt. R.K.Meda is quashed and set

aside.

7. I would like to refer and reproduce certain observation/finding

of the said judgement passed by the Coordinate Bench of this

Court, which read thus:

"6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record.

6.1. A short question arises for the consideration of this Court namely whether the respondent authorities were entitled to terminate the services of the petitioner after the petitioner had been confirmed in service upon completing five years more particularly on the ground that within a period of two years from the date of completion, the petitioner had not passed the CCC examination.

7. To appreciate the issue, it would be worthwhile to

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026

undefined

take a look at the relevant facts.

7.1. As noted hereinabove, it would appear that the petitioner, upon being appointed in the year 2009, as per the terms of the appointment order had passed CCC examination within approximately one year of joining service and whereas, a certificate to such effect has also been produced on record. It would further appear that the petitioner was regularized in service upon completion of five years on contractual basis and whereas as per the terms of the appointment order, such regularization could only have been possible if the respondents had taken appropriate note of the petitioner having passed the CCC examination. To clarify, condition no.7 of the appointment order inter alia prescribes that amongst other, the petitioner would be required to pass the CCC examination, failing which, the petitioner would not be regularized on fixed pay on the post in question. Thus, the petitioner being regularized after completion of five years leads to a clear and palpable inference that the respondents were well aware at the relevant point of time that the petitioner had passed the CCC examination.

7.2. As far as GR dated 23.10.2015 is concerned, it would be clear that the respondents have misinterpreted the scope and ambit of the said resolution. A plain reading of the said resolution would nowhere indicate that a government employee who had been appointed

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026

undefined

on a particular post would be required to pass the CCC examination in two stages i.e. (i) within the period of five years, and (ii) upon completion of five years within the further period of two years. As against the same, it would clearly appear that the GR dated 23.10.2015 was a beneficial GR which extended the period for contractual employees to pass the CCC examination i.e. within a further period of two years from the date they complete the period of five years.

8. At this stage, this Court seeks to rely upon the observations of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Gujarat vs. Kodiyatar Manda Amarabhai [LPA No.376/2021, dated 20.07.2021]. Paragraph nos. 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27 and 28 being relevant for the present purpose are being quoted hereinbelow for benefit:-

20. Whereas Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 provides for amending the Government Resolution dated 4.6.2009 for appointment in class-III and IV posts on contract basis with fixed pay.

21. Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 has substituted clause(2) of condition no.11 of terms and conditions of Annexure-I to Government Resolution dated 4.6.2009 providing for appointment on the post of class-III and IV posts on contract with fixed pay and as per Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015, it is provided that the applicant who is regularly appointed has to pass CCC examination for computer knowledge within two years from the date of appointment.

22. Further, the said Government Resolution dated

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026

undefined

23.10.2015 has substituted clause(2) of condition no.12 of the Government Resolution dated 4.6.2009 for appointment on class-III and IV posts on contract basis with fixed pay with reference to the seniority of such employee and it has been provided in Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015, by cancelling sub-

clause(2) of condition no.12 of terms and conditions at Annexure-I to Government Resolution dated 4.6.2009, to the effect that when the employee has passed CCC examination within the contract period, then such employee would be entitled to regular pay scale and seniority but the employee who has not passed CCC examination within two years from the date of regular appointment, then services of such employee would be terminated immediately and after such employee passes CCC examination then the employee can be reinstated without giving the benefit of seniority.

25. Having heard the Learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge, short question which arises for consideration is that whether Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 would be applicable from the date when it came into effect or would it govern retrospectively when the services of the respondents-employees original petitioners were regularized?

26. In order to answer the question, we may revisit Rule 9A of Rules, 1967 together with the Notifications and Government Resolutions issued by the State Government from time to time.

27. On conjoint reading of Notification dated 23.10.2015 which has amended Rule 9A by inserting words "or within a period of two years thereafter"

after the words "contractual basis" under Sub-rule(3) of Rule 9A of Rules, 1967 and Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 which has substituted conditions no.11(2) and 12(2) of the terms and condition for

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026

undefined

appointment prescribed in Annexure-I of the Government Resolution dated 4.6.2009 for appointment on the posts of class-III and IV posts on contract basis with fixed pay would mean that Rule 9A(3) is amended to the effect that the employee who is appointed on contractual basis, is required to pass CCC/CCC+ examination for computer knowledge within a period of two years after contractual period is over and on basis of such amendment which has come into effect from 4.6.2009, clause 11(2) and 12(2) of the terms and conditions for appointment on contractual basis in Annexure-I of the Government Resolution dated 04.06.2009 have been substituted by Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015. Therefore, it cannot be said that Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 substituting clauses 11(2) and 12(2) of the terms and conditions for appointment on contractual basis for fixed pay would be applicable with effect from 4.6.2009 making it compulsory for the employees who are appointed on regular basis prior to coming into force of Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 to pass CCC/CCC+ examination within two years from the date of their regular appointment failing which service of such employee would be terminated.

28. As the terms and conditions of appointment on contractual basis stipulated in Government Resolution dated 4.6.2009 have been substituted by Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015, the Learned Single Judge rightly held that Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 would be applicable prospectively i.e. from 23.10.2015 and not retrospectively and the concerned employee whose service is regularised as per Government Resolution dated 4.6.2009 as per Rule 9A(3)of the Rules,1967 which is amended by Notification dated 23.10.2015, period of two years is to be considered from the date of Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 and not from the date of regularisation of such employee."

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026

undefined

9. Considering the observations of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, more particularly, having regard to the observations of this Court as regards the GR dated 23.10.2015, in the considered opinion of this Court, the GR nowhere envisages that after regularization, upon completing five years on fixed pay in spite of having passed the CCC examination during the five year period, the employee should once again pass the CCC examination within a period of two years from regularization. As against the same, a plain reading of the impugned order dated 22.06.2017 clearly shows that the petitioner has been terminated from service in purported exercise of GR dated 23.10.2015 more particularly since the petitioner did not pass the CCC examination within two years of her regularization. Considering the above discussion, the order clearly lacking jurisdiction, more particularly the respondents have clearly misread the GR dated 23.10.2015. Having regard to the same, the impugned order of termination dated 22.06.2017 qua the present petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside.

9.1. The respondents shall readjust the seniority of the petitioner as well as grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner as if the impugned order dated 22.06.2017 had never been passed. Insofar as arrears for the period from the date of appointment till the date of reinstatement is concerned, the same shall be treated as notional, but, should be counted for the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026

undefined

purpose of pension and other benefits.

10. With these observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of as allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Appropriate consequential benefits to be granted to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order."

(emphasis supplied)

8. Thus, in view of the aforesaid observations and directions, this

Court finds that the present case is squarely covered by the

aforesaid judgment and order dated 12.12.2023 in Special Civil

Application No.10011 of 2018 and similar directions are

required to be issued with only one addition that as it remains

undisputed between the parties that the petitioner having

worked all throughout and there is no break in service, the

petitioner is entitled to actual arrears and not notional.

CONCLUSION :

9. Therefore, for the reasons given in the aforesaid order dated

12.12.2023 in Special Civil Application No.10011 of 2018, and