SAVJIBHAI VELJIBHAI MESARIYA vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/13574/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240675252026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13574 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
SAVJIBHAI VELJIBHAI MESARIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SAMIR B GOHIL(5718) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS POOJA ASHAR AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 02/11/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1] Heard Mr. Samir B. Gohil, learned advocate for the
petitioner and Ms. Pooja Ashar, learned A.G.P. for the respondent
State.
[2] The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:53:38 IST 2026
C/SCA/13574/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240675252026)
“ A) Directing the respondents to grant benefits of fixed pay
w.e.f 1.7.1985 and benefit of regular pay scale w.e.f 1.7.1990
as per GR dt. 17.10.1988 and further directing them to revise
his pay scale accordingly and pay consequential benefits.
B) Directing the respondents to pay pension and gratuity to the
petitioner as per GR dt. 17.10.1988 with 8% interest.
C) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the
respondents may be directed to fix and pay provisional pension
to the petitioner on the basis of her last drawn pay.”
SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE :
[3] The short controversy germane in this matter is that
despite the fact that there is an order of reinstatement issued by the
Labour Court on 29.11.2005, whereby the petitioner got reinstated
on her original post from where she was terminated from her
service in the year 1984, the actual benefits of Government
Resolution dated 17.10.1988 was not given by the respondents,
inasmuch as, continuity of service to count notionally was not at all
taken into account.
[3.1] It appears that after the reinstatement of the petitioner,
the respondent authority considered the actual service rendered by
the petitioner from the year 2000, whereby on completion of five
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:53:38 IST 2026
C/SCA/13574/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240675252026)
years, she was put in fixed pay. Thereafter, on completion of
further five years, she was given actual pay scale in the year 2006
and as the petitioner retired from service on 30.09.2023, having
not completed 10 years of qualifying service to receive pension,
such benefit was denied to her. Hence, the present petition.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER :
[4] Mr. Samir Gohil, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner would submit that as per the settled position of law, once
the petitioner got reinstated as per the award passed by the Labour
Court, continuity of service, though not expressly observed in the
award, requires to be considered by the respondent whereby, the
petitioner is deemed to have been in service from 1984 till the date
of her retirement i.e. on 30.09.2023.
[4.1] It is further submitted that after completion of five
years from 1980, i.e. 1.7.1985, the petitioner is entitled to receive
fixed pay having completed five years of service and w.e.f.
1.7.1985, on completion of further five years of service, he is
entitled to receive regular pay scale. It is further submitted that as
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:53:38 IST 2026
C/SCA/13574/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240675252026)
per Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The initial date of
service of the petitioner requires to be considered for qualifying
service to receive pension. Thereby, the petitioner requires to be
granted pensionary benefit as the initial year of service of the
petitioner was 1984.
[4.2] To buttress his arguments, he would rely upon the
following judgments :
(i) Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others - (2002) 9
SCC 492.
(ii) Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao vs. Kosan Industries (P)
Ltd. - AIR 2020 SC 1776.
(iii) District Panchayat vs. Danabhai Kalabhai rendered in
Letters Patent Appeal No. 485 of 2017 dated 20.07.2021.
(iv) District Panchayat vs. Danabhai Kalabhai rendered in
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2116 of 2022.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
[5] Per contra , Ms. Pooja Ashar, learned A.G.P. would
submit that as the petitioner was actually reinstated in service in
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:53:38 IST 2026
C/SCA/13574/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240675252026)
the year 2006 and having completed 10 years of service in 2016,
thereby he was not entitled to receive any pensionary benefit. It is
submitted that the regularization order dated 19.10.2006 is
challenged after 20 years by way of present petition. According to
the submission of the learned A.G.P., the petitioner would not
receive any pensionary benefit, having not completed qualifying
years of service to receive pension and having approached this
Court after fatal delay more particularly without any decision on
representation dated 02.09.2025.
ANALYSIS :
[6] Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties, the following facts are not in dispute.
[6.1] The petitioner was appointed as a daily wager in the
year 1984 and in the same year, she was dismissed from service.
The petitioner appears to have approached the Labour Court by
raising an industrial dispute by way of reference, which came to be
allowed in her favour on 29.11.2005, whereby the petitioner was
reinstated in service without any back wages. There was no express
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:53:38 IST 2026
C/SCA/13574/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240675252026)
observation made by the Labour Court as regards continuity of
service.
[6.2] Thereafter, the petitioner was actually reinstated in
service in the year 2006 and she came to be retired from her service
in the year 2023. It is in this background of facts vide order dated
05.01.2006, the respondent put the petitioner in regular pay scale
w.e.f. 01.12.2005 considering his service with effect from the year
19.10.2006, instead of the year 1990. So, respondents have not
granted any pensionary benefits to the petitioner.
[7] The issue germane in this matter would be squarely
covered by decisions which are cited by learned advocate Mr. Gohil
and as such, there is no cavil that once the order of reinstatement
has been granted by the Labour Court, continuity of service is
deemed to have been granted, even though it is not expressly
observed in the award of the Labour Court. I would not like to
burden myself by quoting ratio of the aforesaid decisions as same is
not disputed by the respondents.
[8] In light of the above, the decision of the respondent
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:53:38 IST 2026
C/SCA/13574/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240675252026)
authority whereby placing the petitioner in regular pay scale w.e.f.
19.10.2006 requires to be interfered with by this Court, inasmuch
as, it runs contrary to Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 as
well as Circular dated 30.05.1989 issued by respondent – State.
CONCLUSION :
[9] Having so observed that the decision of the respondent
authority is not in consonance with the aforesaid
resolution/circular, considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and foregoing reasons, the prayers made in this
petition require to be accepted. Thereby, the respondents are
directed to reconsider the date of entitlement of the petitioner to
receive fixed pay as well as pay scale w.e.f. 1.7.1985 and 1.7.1990,
respectively, instead of what has been stated in service book record.
[9.1] Accordingly, entire period of service of the petitioner
from the year 1980 till the date of actual retirement, i.e.
30.09.2023, requires to be considered for all retirement benefits
like pension, gratuity and leave encashment.
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:53:38 IST 2026
C/SCA/13574/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240675252026)
[9.2] Consequently, the respondent authorities are hereby
directed to grant all such benefits to the petitioner and any
difference of such amount is also to be paid, if so far not paid,
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order, failing which, the respondents shall have to pay
interest at the rate of 9% on the said amount from the date of such
default.
[9.3] It goes without saying that once all such arrears amount
are paid to the petitioner within the stipulated time, regular
pension be paid to the petitioner.
[10] Thus, in view of aforesaid conclusion, the petition is
allowed. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
CHANDRESH
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 19:53:38 IST 2026