[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Ranchhodbhai Kalubhai Khant vs State Of Gujarat on 6 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7782/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7782 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
=============================================
RANCHHODBHAI KALUBHAI KHANT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR UT MISHRA FOR MR TR MISHRA(483) for Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. MUKESH T MISHRA(5900) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SIDDHARTH RAMI, AGP for Respondent State
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR UM SHASTRI(830) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,4
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 06/03/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Siddharth Rami, learned
AGP, waives service of Rule on behalf of the State
respondents. Mr.U.M.Shastri waives service of Rule on behalf
of respondent Nos.3 and 4.
1.1 With the consent of the learned advocates for the
respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
2. Heard Mr.U.T.Mishra, learned advocate for
Mr.T.R.Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr.Rami,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7782/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
learned AGP appearing for the respondent-State and
Mr.U.M.Shastri, learned advocate appearing for respondent
Nos.3 and 4.
3. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :
"(A) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue an order,
direction and/or writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and
setting aside the impugned Order dated 29-9-2017, as being
illegal, perverse and contrary to the record and be pleased to
direct the respondents to immediately grant regular time-
scale of pay of Class. IV employee to the petitioner as per
Government Resolution dated 17-10-1988 and be further
pleased to direct the respondents to immediately extend the
benefit from the date on which the petitioner has completed
5, 10 & 15 years of service;
(B) That Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondents
to immediately grant the arrears arising out of the said
benefit of Government Resolution dated 17-10-1988 on
completion of 5, 10 & 15 years of service;
(C) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your
Lordships be pleased to direct the respondents to
immediately start paying wages of Class.IV employee to the
petitioner as per Government Resolution dated 17-10-
1988;"
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE :
4. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was
engaged as a part-time daily wager in the respondent
establishment in the year 1987 and his services came to be
terminated, but he was ordered to be reinstated as per the
award passed by the learned Tribunal, which was confirmed
by this Court. After a series of litigation in the form of writ
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7782/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
petitions filed one after another by both sides, finally vide
order dated 29.09.2017 impugned in this petition, the
petitioner was reinstated in his original post with continuity of
service. It has been specifically observed by the respondent in
the impugned order dated 29.09.2017 that the petitioner was
appointed as a part-time 'Attendant' for three hours and
accordingly, he was reinstated on the post, albeit for three
hours.
4.1 As per the Government Resolution dated 01.05.2007, for
those part-timers who completed 10 years of service and
worked for six hours and more on a sanctioned post, as a one-
time measure, the State has decided to regularize their
services.
4.2 The petitioner appears to have approached this Court
seeking regularization of his services by way of a writ petition,
being Special Civil Application No.8358 of 2014, wherein the
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated
01.03.2016 directed the respondent to consider the claim of
the petitioner in light of the decision of the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Revabhai Pasabhia Prajapati vs.
State of Gujarat and another - (2011) 2 GLH (UJ) 2. It
appears that the petitioner was not regularized in service,
rather reinstated as stated hereinabove by the respondent.
Hence, the present petition.
4.3 It is not in dispute that during the pendency of this
petition, the petitioner reached to the age of superannuation
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7782/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
and accordingly retired from service. All retiral benefits as
available to the petitioner have been paid by the respondent
to the petitioner, except pension.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER :
5. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner, would
submit that the petitioner was engaged as a part-time daily
wager in the year 1987 and due to the award passed by the
Labour Court as confirmed by this Court, he was actually
reinstated in service in the year 2017 with continuity of
service. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to get the relief
of regularization. It is further submitted that other similarly
situated persons have been regularized in their services, but a
similar benefit is not granted in favour of the petitioner. To
buttress this argument, Mr. Mishra, learned advocate has
relied upon the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in
case of Chavda Bhagwanji Khimji and others vs. State of
Gujarat and others, being Special Civil Application
No.15713 of 2010, dated 30.03.2016.
5.1 Mr.Mishra, learned advocate would submit that as per
the Government Resolution dated 01.05.2007 of the State, the
petitioner is entitled to receive the benefit of regularization
even though he was being treated as a part-timer; but in fact,
he worked for the entire day and accordingly received the
wages. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get
benefit of resolution dated 17.10.1988 and the petitioner's
services ought to have been regularized.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7782/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
5.2 By making the above submissions, Mr.Mishra, learned
advocate for the petitioner would urge this Court to allow the
present petition.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS :
6. Per contra, Mr.Rami, learned AGP and Mr.Shastri,
learned advocate appearing for the respective respondents,
would vehemently oppose the prayers made in this petition,
contending inter alia that there is nothing on record to show
that the petitioner was engaged for the entire day; rather, his
reappointment order dated 29.09.2017 impugned in this
petition, itself shows that he was engaged for three hours a
day as an Attendant, whereby he was reinstated on his
original post for three hours.
6.1 Learned advocates for the respondents have further
submitted that the petitioner was paid all retiral dues as
available to any part-time daily wager, except pension. It is
submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be regularized
in his service as per the Resolution dated 01.05.2007,
inasmuch as all four conditions stipulated in the aforesaid
Resolution have not been fulfilled by the petitioner. It is
further submitted that the aforesaid Resolution would be
applicable in the case of part-timers who work for six hours or
more per day on a sanctioned post, which is not the case at
hand.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7782/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
6.2 Learned advocates for the respondents have further
submitted that earlier in point of time, in none of the
judgments/orders passed by this Court, the respondents were
directed to regularize the services of the petitioner. It is
submitted that this Court had not issued any declaration to
the effect that the petitioner was engaged for the full day, and
was thereby entitled to receive the benefit of the resolution
dated 17.10.1988. It is further submitted that the petitioner's
appointment was not by way of a regular selection; thereby,
he cannot be treated as a regularly selected candidate; thus,
the petitioner is not entitled to receive pensionary benefits.
6.3 Making the above submissions, learned advocates for
the respective respondents have urged this Court to dismiss
the present petition.
ANALYSIS :
7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and upon perusal of the pleadings and previous orders
passed by this Court, the following would emerge.
7.1 The petitioner was engaged as a part-time daily wager
for three hours a day. There is nothing on record to show that
the petitioner had in fact worked for the entire day with the
respondent establishment. Rather, the office order dated
29.09.2017 issued by the respondent No.3 impugned in this
writ petition would show that the petitioner was engaged as a
part-time 'Attendant' only for three hours and his service was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7782/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
terminated on 04.05.1989, but the Reference filed by him was
allowed by the Labour Court, which was confirmed by this
Court. Accordingly, vide said impugned order, the petitioner
was reinstated with continuity of service on his original post
for three hours a day as a part-timer.
8. The Government Resolution dated 01.05.2007 would
indicate that, as a one-time measure, the State has decided to
regularize the services of part-timers who worked for 10 years
or more continuously for six hours or more per day on a
sanctioned post. It may be true that by granting the benefit of
continuity of service by the Labour Court, the petitioner has
completed 10 years of service, but the other requirement
regarding working six hours or more per day is not fulfilled,
inasmuch as the impugned order dated 29.09.2017 provides
that he is appointed as a part-timer for three hours per day.
9. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case and as the petitioner was engaged only for three hours a
day, no benefit of the aforesaid Resolution dated 01.05.2007
can be granted in favour of the petitioner. Likewise, no benefit
of the resolution dated 17.10.1988 can be granted to
petitioner as he was engaged only as part-timer unlike a daily
wager engaged for the whole day. Furthermore, the petitioner
was not a regularly selected candidate and merely working as
a part-timer for long years would not entitle him to claim any
benefit of regularization.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7782/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
10. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate has placed reliance upon
the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Chavda Bhagwanji Khimji and others (supra), to
contend that other similarly situated persons like the
petitioner have been regularized in service. A bare reading of
the aforesaid decision of the Coordinate Bench would show
that no direction for regularization has been issued by this
Court; rather, it was left to the discretion of the respondent
authority to consider the claim of the petitioners concerned.
There is nothing on record to show that they are identically
situated like the petitioner. They might have been engaged as
part-timers but in a case where, they fulfilled all conditions of
the aforesaid Resolution dated 01.05.2007, in such
circumstances, they might have been granted the benefit of
regularization. The same benefit cannot be claimed by the
petitioner as a matter of course especially when the petitioner
failed to prove the criteria set out in said resolution be it
17.10.1988 or 01.05.2007, as the case may be.
11. In light of the aforesaid observations and foregoing
reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition, which is liable
to be dismissed.
12. Before parting with the matter, I would like to observe
that the conduct of respondent No.3 is unbecoming of a public
servant. As per the order dated 14.11.2022, wherein the
statement of Mr. Shastri, learned advocate for respondent
No.3, has been recorded to the effect that pension papers of
the petitioner were prepared and sent to respondent No.1.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7782/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
Later on, as recorded in the order dated 18.11.2025, as per
the reply filed by the respondents, the claim of regularization
of the petitioner was in fact denied by the District
Development Officer and it was informed to the Court that
due to inadvertence, the aforesaid statement has been made.
This Court has directed to clarify such aspect and name the
officer under whose instructions such a statement made by
Mr. Shastri, learned advocate for respondent No. 3. Till date,
Mr. Shastri, learned advocate for respondent No. 3 is unable
to give the name of such officer as he has been told by his
instructing officer that, in the absence of any record
maintained in the office, it is difficult to give the name of the
particular person. According to Mr. Shastri, learned advocate,
he has received such instructions from officials of respondent
No.4.
13. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that
such a misstatement or false statement could not have been
made by the respondent authority, as it is not only misleading
but runs contrary to the stance of the respondents and it
would be misleading. Nonetheless, without taking any stern
view against the authority concerned, but as such a thing
should not be repeated in future, according to me, it would be
just and proper to impose a penalty upon respondent No.4,
whose official tried to mislead this Court. Thus, it is hereby
directed to respondent No.4 to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- as
a penalty with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority
within a week from today. It is open for respondent No.4 to
get it recovered from its erring official, at whose instance, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7782/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
aforesaid false was statement made by Mr.Shastri, learned
advocate.
14. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the present petition
is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands
vacated forthwith.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
