JAYESHBHAI DHANJIBHAI AHIR vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/16516/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240829412025)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16516 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
JAYESHBHAI DHANJIBHAI AHIR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS KRISHNA DESAI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 04/11/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1] The present writ petition has been filed seeking
directions on the respondents to confer the benefits flowing from
the Government Resolutions dated 17.10.1988 and accordingly to
place him in fixed pay after completion of 5 years with effect from
01.03.2001 and in regular pay scale after completion of 10 years
with effect from 01.03.2006..
Page 1 of 12
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:54:49 IST 2026
C/SCA/16516/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240829412025)
[2] At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave
appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the issue is squarely
covered by catena of judgments of the Division Bench as well as
this Court. He has placed reliance on the order dated 18.06.2018
passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1268 of 2017, order dated
05.08.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No.5211 of 2020,
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nandkishore Shravan
Ahirrao vs. Kosan Industries (P) Ltd, AIR SC 1776 and judgment
dated 13.09.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No.15074 of
2020. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of State of Gujarat & Ors. vs. PWD Employees
Union & Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 417 and in the case of The State of
Gujarat vs. PWD And Forest Employees Union & Ors., 2019 (3)
SCALE 642.
[3] The brief facts of the case are as under:-
[3.1] The petitioner was appointed as a Driver with effect
from 01.03.1996 in the office of the respondent No.2. He was
terminated from service on 30.04.2012, which constrained him to
Page 2 of 12
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:54:49 IST 2026
C/SCA/16516/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240829412025)
raise an industrial dispute. The said dispute culminated in
Reference (T) No.151 of 2012. The Labour Court, Surat, vide its
award dated 15.02.2019 set aside the termination of the petitioner
and directed the respondent to reinstate him in service with 30%
back wages. The respondent no.2 challenged the said Award by
way of Special Civil Application No. 10109 of 2019. That this Court
was pleased to modify the Award of the Labour court qua 30%
back-wages and set aside the same, while continuing with the rest
of the Award. Being aggrieved by the said order the respondent
no.2 challenged the said order before the Division bench by filing
Letters patent Appeal being LPA No. 45 of 2023. The said appeal
was dismissed by the Division Bench. While the petitioner was not
reinstated in service and that is why after dismissal of Letters
Patent Appeal, the petitioner filed contempt being Miscellaneous
civil Application No.1132 of 2022, the petitioner was reinstated in
services thereafter. That thereafter the respondents further
challenged the order passed by the Division Bench before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition being SLP
(C) No. 13145 of 2023. Vide order dated 14.07.2023 Hon'ble
Page 3 of 12
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:54:49 IST 2026
C/SCA/16516/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240829412025)
Supreme Court was pleased to reject the SLP filed by the
respondents.
[3.2] It is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled to the
benefits arising from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988,
however, the same has not been conferred upon the petitioner on
the ground that the petitioner has not rendered continuous service
as he has not completed 240 days.
[4] Learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave appearing for the
petitioner has submitted that the applicability of the Government
Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner, is not in dispute,
however, the only issue is with regard to treating his service
continuous in view of the award passed by the Labour Court. Thus,
he has submitted that the respondents may be directed to confer
the benefits flowing from the aforesaid resolutions and place the
petitioner in fixed pay with effect from 01.03.2001 and thereafter
in the regular pay scale with effect from 01.03.2006..
[4.1] Learned advocate Mr. Dave has also placed reliance on
Page 4 of 12
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:54:49 IST 2026
C/SCA/16516/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240829412025)
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet
Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors, (2002) 9 SCC 492. He has
also placed reliance on the judgment dated 28.12.2018 passed in
Letters Patent Appeal No.1567 of 2018 and allied matters and has
submitted that the benefits, as ordered by the Division Bench, may
also be paid to the present petitioner.
[5] Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. Kaash Thakker
appearing for the respondent no.2, has submitted that since the
petitioner's service is not continuous, the Labour Court has not
granted continuity of service and thus the petitioner cannot be said
to be in continuous service, hence he is not entitled to the benefits
flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.
[6] I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties.
[7] The facts, as narrated hereinabove, are not in dispute.
The termination of the petitioner was subject matter of challenge
before the Labour Court. He was terminated on 30.04.2012 and
Page 5 of 12
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:54:49 IST 2026
C/SCA/16516/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240829412025)
pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court and confirmed
by this Court, he was reinstated on 17.03.2023. The Labour Court
in the award dated 15.02.2019 passed in Reference (T) No.151 of
2012 has directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in
service with 30% back wages. However, this Court has set aside
30% back wages and same has become final up to the Hon'ble
Supreme court.
[8] At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh
(supra), wherein it has been observed thus:-
"3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on
examining the materials on record, we fail to understand how
the continuity of service could be denied once the plaintiff is
directed to be reinstated in service on setting aside the order of
termination. It is not a case of fresh appointment, but it is a
case of reinstatement. That being the position, direction of the
High Court that the plaintiff will not get continuity of service
cannot be sustained and we set aside the part of the impugned
order. So far as the arrears of salary is concerned, we see no
infirmity with the direction which was given by the lower
appellate court taking into account the facts and circumstances
including the fact that the suit was filed after a considerable
length of time. That part of the decree denying the arrears of
salary stands affirmed and this appeal stands allowed in part to
the extent indicated above."
Page 6 of 12
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:54:49 IST 2026
C/SCA/16516/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240829412025)
Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has enunciated that the
continuity of service cannot be denied to the Workman if he is
directed to be reinstated in service on setting aside the order of
termination.
[9] The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nandkishore
Shravan Ahirrao (supra) has also reiterated the principle of law.
The same is as under:-
"7. Ex facie, the Labour Court having awarded reinstatement to
the appellant, continuity of service would follow as a matter of
law. The award of the Labour Court dated 27 February 2008
does not specifically deny continuity of service. Hence the
observation of the High Court to the effect that the Labour
Court had denied continuity of service is erroneous and would
accordingly stand corrected in terms of what has been observed
herein-above. The appellant would be entitled to continuity of
service."
Thus, it is well settled proposition of law that once the of
reinstatement as awarded by the Labour Court, the continuity of
service would follow as a matter of course. Thus, the entire service
from the date of termination till he was reinstated in service i.e.
from 30.04.2012 to 17.03.2023 is required to be treated as
Page 7 of 12
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:54:49 IST 2026
C/SCA/16516/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240829412025)
continuous.
[10] The issue with regard to denying the benefit flowing
from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 on the ground
of non-completion of 240 days in similar facts is required to be
considered in view of the observations made by the Division Bench
in the order dated 18.06.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal
No.1268 of 2017. The Division Bench has observed thus:-
"5. Thus, the upshot of the aforesaid facts and discussion is that
the present respondent workman is denied the benefits flowing
from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 only on the
ground that he had not completed 240 days in a year and his
"continuity of service", as granted by the Labour Court vide
award dated 23.07.2007 and confirmed by this court, cannot be
considered. The stand taken by the present appellants that the
respondent -workman is not entitled to the benefits of the
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 deserves to be
deprecated. Once it has been established by this court that the
respondent-workman is reinstated in service with continuity of
service, the workman would be entitled to get the benefits
flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988,
and such benefits cannot be denied to the respondent-workman
only on the ground that he has not worked for 240 days. He
was forced to live without work because of his illegal
termination. The appellants cannot take benefit of their illegal
action. The termination of the respondent-workman was found
to be illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. The effect of continuity of service is to be
conferred from the year 1996, when he was appointed as a
daily wager. The impugned order dated 15.04.2016 is blissfully
Page 8 of 12
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:54:49 IST 2026
C/SCA/16516/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240829412025)
silent about denying the benefits of the Government Resolution
dated 17.10.1988 to the workmen who have been reinstated
with continuity of service. The Government Resolutions dated
17.10.1988 and 01.05.1991 envisage grant of benefits of pay
fixation, pension, etc. to the daily wagers, who have completed
certain number of years of service."
[11] The Division Bench, while examining the provisions of
the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, has held that once
the termination of the respondent-Workman is found to be illegal
and contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(for short "the ID Act"), the effect of continuity of service is
required to be conferred and the benefits of the Government
Resolution dated 17.10.1988 cannot be denied to him on the
premise that he has not worked or completed 240 days. The
Workman was compelled to remain out of service because of his
illegal termination and such illegal action on being set aside, the
respondents cannot deny the benefits flowing from the Government
Resolution dated 17.10.1988 on the ground that the petitioner has
not completed 240 days and there is no continuity of service. Such
contention or submission raised by the respondent is required to be
rejected at the outset in view of the fact that the termination of the
Page 9 of 12
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:54:49 IST 2026
C/SCA/16516/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240829412025)
petitioner has been declared illegal.
[12] So far as the contention raised with regard to delay by
the respondents in approaching this Court is concerned, the same
also does not merit acceptance since it was the respondents, who
were required to confer the benefits arising from the Government
Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and accordingly, he should have been
paid all the benefits to the petitioner. The respondent no.2 cannot
say that the services of the petitioner was not continuous for
denying the benefits of pension flowing from the Government
Resolution dated 17.10.1988.
[13] It is not in dispute that the Government Resolution
dated 17.10.1988 was under scrutiny by the Apex Court in the case
of PWD And Forest Employees Union & Ors reported in 2019
(3) Scale 642 . The Supreme Court has held that the workmen,
who complete 5, 10 and 15 years of service, are required to be
placed in regular pay-scale. The dispute with regard to applicability
of the aforesaid resolutions to the daily wagers working in the
various departments of the State of Gujarat, is no more res integra.
Page 10 of 12
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:54:49 IST 2026
C/SCA/16516/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240829412025)
Thus, the respondents are directed to confer the benefits arising
from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, which would
be applicable to the petitioner's case and accordingly, he shall be
conferred all the benefits as per the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of PWD And Forest Employees Union
& Ors. (supra). Accordingly the petitioner is entitled to be placed
in fixed pay at the end of 5 years and thereafter, in the regular pay
scale after end of 10 years.
[14] In view of the foregoing reasons, I pass the following
order.
[14.1] This Writ petition deserves to be allowed, which is
hereby allowed as follow:
(i) The respondents are directed to give all the consequential
th
benefits of Government Resolution dated 17 October 1988
to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.03.2001.
(ii) Once, the aforesaid benefits will be paid by the
respondents to the petitioner, as the petitioner is still in
Page 11 of 12
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:54:49 IST 2026
C/SCA/16516/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240829412025)
service, respondents are directed to pay him regular salary
with all service benefits.
(iii) All the arrears shall be paid to the petitioner as early as
possible preferably within period of 2 months, failing which
the petitioner is entitled to receive any such arrears amount
with 6% interest after two months from today till its
realization.
[15] In view of foregoing conclusion, the present writ
petition is hereby allowed. Rule is made absolute, to the aforesaid
extent.
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
CHANDRESH
Page 12 of 12
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:54:49 IST 2026