[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
F H Shaikh vs State Of Gujarat on 11 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8421/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8421 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
F H SHAIKH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. SIDDHARTH RAMI, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 11/03/2026
JUDGMENT
[1] Heard Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas, learned advocate for the
petitioner as also Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned AGP for the
respondent - State and its authorities, at length.
[2] This Court, vide its order dated 25.02.2026, passed the
following order:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8421/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
"1. Heard Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas, learned Advocate for the petitioner and
Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned AGP for the Respondent - State.
2. At the outset, Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned Advocate for the petitioner
drew attention of this Court that the reason for not granting promotion
pursuant to DPC's decision dated 08.03.1996 and 30.11.1996 by the
Respondent - State was the pendency of one disciplinary enquiry
pending against the petitioner as on that date, wherein the petitioner
was exonerated on 29.06.1998. Apart from the said enquiry, the reason
for non-grant of promotion to the petitioner was another enquiry
pending against the petitioner, wherein charge-sheet came to be issued
against the petitioner on 12.09.1994.
3. Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned Advocate for the petitioner would state that
in the said enquiry, order of punishment was passed against the
petitioner, whereby penalty stoppage of one increment with future
effect was effected. He submitted that aforesaid order of penalty was
challenged by the petitioner before this Court, by way of Special Civil
Application 8490 of 2010. This Court vide its judgment dated
11.02.2026 allowed the aforesaid petition, whereby it has quashed and
set aside the order of punishment.
4. Thus, in view of the aforesaid subsequent development which has taken
place during the pendency of this petition, as on date, there is no
departmental enquiry pending against the petitioner. It is further
submitted that the petitioner is already retired from his service and
sufficiently punished by respondent due to non-grant of promotion,
though he was eligible during his tenure of service.
5. Per contra, Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned AGP for the Respondent -
State stated that at the time of filing of the petition, as there were two
enquiries pending when D.P.C. met for considering the case of the
petitioner for promotion and due to such reason, the case of the
petitioner was not considered for promotion. Nonetheless, Mr.
Siddharth Rami, learned AGP for the Respondent - State is unable to
controvert the aforesaid facts submitted by Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned
Advocate for the petitioner that in the pending enquiry against the
petitioner, he was exonerated.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and developments which have taken
place during the pendency of this petition, now there is no justifiable
reason available with Respondent - State not to consider the case of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8421/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
the petitioner for promotion. As the decision of D.P.C. is put in the
sealed cover, to avoid further delay in the matter, this Court is of the
view that on the next date of hearing, the respondent shall have to
submit the sealed cover before this Court and in the presence of
learned Advocates for the respective parties, it will be opened by this
Court.
7. Hence, the respondent is hereby directed to place on record the sealed
cover before the next date of hearing.
8. Stand over to 11.03.2026."
[3] Apropos to the aforesaid order, today when the matter was
taken up for hearing, Mr. Rami, learned AGP would state that
even after rigorous search, the concerned department of the
respondent is unable to find out / locate the sealed cover.
Nonetheless, Mr. Rami, learned AGP would draw the attention of
this Court that, as such the decision of the D.P.C. dated 30.11.1996
is placed on record along with the petition whereby if petitioner
will be exonerated from the departmental inquiry, then after he
would be placed at Sr. No.25 in the select-list.
[4] At this stage, Mr. Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner,
would submit that due to the false implication of the petitioner,
who was subjected to unwarranted inquiry, he has endured
significant hardship. This Court, while allowing writ petition of
the petitioner being Special Civil Application No. 8490 of 2010, has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8421/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
already quashed and set aside the order of punishment dated
16.06.1999 imposed by the respondent. Thus, in view of above, the
petitioner may be awarded all consequential benefits including
salary of promotional post from the date on which petitioner is
entitled to be promoted till his superannuation and also be granted
difference of retiral / pensionary benefits.
[4.1] Mr. Vyas, learned advocate, would further submit that in the
year 2009, by way of Special Civil Application No.11164 of 2009,
the petitioner had approached this Court seeking direction against
the respondents to give effect of said recommendation of D.P.C,
but despite the direction issued by this Court, the respondent had
not taken any decision until the last order passed by this Court on
18.06.2010 in MCA No.1386 of 2010 in SCA No.11164 of 2009.
Thus, there is no delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching
this Court, inasmuch for the first time, the petitioner denied the
promotion vide its communication dated 09.07.2010.
[5] Per contra, Mr. Rami, learned AGP would submit that there is
an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner to approach this
Court asking relief of promotion by way of this petition. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8421/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
submitted that petitioner was found guilty of misconduct in one of
the inquiries pending as on the date of decision of D.P.C., i.e.,
30.11.1996, as the order of punishment dated 16.06.1999 came to be
passed against the petitioner. Even after, a request of petitioner to
review the same was also rejected and communicated to the
petitioner on 15.01.2000, then also petitioner again approached the
reviewing authority on 13.03.2000. So, the competent Authority
vide its order dated 09.07.2010 rejected the said repetitive request
of the petitioner.
[5.1] Mr. Rami, learned AGP, would further submit that once the
petitioner was made aware about the order of punishment, i.e.
16.06.1999, and decision of the reviewing authority dated
05.01.2000, there was no reason for the petitioner to approach this
Court in the year 2010 challenging the aforesaid decision.
Therefore, Mr. Rami, learned AGP would submit that only
notional benefits may be granted in favour of the petitioner from
the date of his actual promotion till the date of his superannuation.
[6] Having heard the learned advocates for respective parties
and taking note of the submissions/observations recorded by this
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8421/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
Court vide aforesaid order dated 25.02.2026, reproduced
hereinabove, according to my view, the respondent is not in a
position to dispute that the petitioner has been exonerated from all
inquiries which were pending as on the date of decision of D.P.C.,
i.e. 30.11.1996. Accordingly, the petitioner is required to be granted
benefits of promotion with all consequential benefits flowing
thereof, i.e., notional and / or actual, as the case may be.
[7] I have patiently heard the respective learned advocates,
insofar as petitioner's entitlement to receive all consequential
benefits upon the grant of promotion in favour of the petitioner is
concerned.
[7.1] The petitioner cannot dispute one fact that pursuance of
pending inquiry, the aforesaid order of punishment came to be
passed by the respondent on 16.06.1999 and his review application
also came to be rejected by the competent Authority vide
communication dated 05.01.2000. It may be true that the petitioner
might have again approached the reviewing authority / higher
authority of respondent on 13.03.2000 and it took about 10 years to
finally decide the request of the petitioner, as the respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8421/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
rejected the request of the petitioner on 09.07.2010.
[7.2] According to my view, the cause of action was already
accrued in favour of the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid
decision of the punishment way back in the year 1999/2000 but the
petitioner remained quiet for about 10 years in challenging such
decision, which ultimately resulted into delay in deciding the lis
between the parties. Had the said order of punishment been
challenged in the year 1999/2000, this Court could have decided
this challenge much earlier than it has been decided on 11.02.2026,
as aforesaid.
[7.3] At relevant point of time, the anxiety of the petitioner to get
promotion can be appreciated by this Court. Yet, at the same time,
due to pendency of the inquiry at the time of DPC met and final
decision of the Disciplinary Authority dated 16.06.1999 went
against petitioner, then due to such reason, petitioner was
correctly not offered promotion. As such, only petitioner can be
blamed for delay in challenging the said order of punishment, as
aforesaid. According to me, there was no reason for the petitioner
to come after these many years and to seek actual consequential
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8421/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
benefits flowing from getting promotion.
[7.4] It also needs to be mentioned here that the petitioner had
approached this Court in the year 2009 by way of aforesaid
petition, but it is undisputed that this Court vide its order dated
18.06.2010 passed in MCA No.1386 of 2010 in SCA No.11164 of
2009, directed the respondent to take appropriate decision in
regard to promotion of petitioner within stipulated time.
Accordingly, the respondent has taken decision vide
communication dated 09.07.2010, which is on record.
[8] Thus, considering the said peculiar facts and circumstances
and taking note of the inordinate delay on the part of the
petitioner in challenging his punishment order, and in view of the
foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the petitioner is not
entitled to receive the salary prescribed for the promotional post
from the date of the promotion until the petitioner approached this
Court by way of this petition, i.e., 11.07.2010. Nonetheless, for the
said period, the petitioner is entitled to receive notional benefits.
At the same time, the petitioner is entitled to receive salary
prescribed for the promotional post from 12.07.2010 until he
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8421/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
reached the age of superannuation, i.e., 30.04.2011.
[8.1] The difference of arrears of pay for the said period and other
consequential benefits flowing from granting actual promotion,
including the retiral benefits / pensionary benefits, shall be
calculated and paid to the petitioner by the respondent on or
before 31st May, 2026, failing which, the petitioner is entitled to
receive such benefits with 6% interest per annum from 1 st June,
2026 till its realization.
[8.2] It goes without saying that pension of the petitioner requires
to be revised by the respondent upon giving effect of promotion,
as aforesaid and shall be paid revise pension regularly.
[9] In view of the forgoing conclusions, the present petition is
partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct Service is permitted.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J.)
Lalji Desai
