PATEL FALGUNIBAHEN MAULIKKUMAR vs STATE OF GUJARAT

C/SCA/16037/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240142562021)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16037 of 2021

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
PATEL FALGUNIBAHEN MAULIKKUMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
HUNAIZA H QURESHI(8903) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. EKRAMA H QURESHI(7000) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS FORUM SUKHADWALA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

Date : 27/10/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having
regard to the consent and request of the parties appearing
through their respective learned advocates, the petition was
taken up for final consideration today.
1.1 Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service of
rule on behalf of the respondents..
1.2 Heard learned advocate Mr. Ekrama Qureshi for the
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 16:42:42 IST 2026

C/SCA/16037/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240142562021)
petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondents.
2. This petition is filed seeking following prayers :
“A. Be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus, writ in the nature of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing
the respondents to release the increments with arrears (under the fifth
pay and sixth pay as applicable from its respective dates) from the
date of the initial appointment of the petitioner with interest and all
other consequential benefits.
B. Be pleased to direct the respondents to treat the petitioner who
is appointed as Ad Hoc lecturer (Class-II) after May 2008 at par with
the ad hoc lecturers appointed prior to May 2008 and to grant the pay
and pay scales and annual increments and salary benefits at par with
them and also to give the arrears of salary (under the relevant pay
commission as become applicable from its respective dates) with
interest.
B. (a) Be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned
communication dated 05.03.21 of the respondent no 2 rejecting the
representations of the petitioner, by holding the same as illegal,
discriminatory, vague and unconstitutional.
C. Be pleased to direct the respondents to give the benefit of
vacation detention, leave, medical allowances, HPL, LTC and other
benefits as given to the lecturers appointed prior to May 2008.
D. During pendency and final disposal of the present petition, the
respondents may be directed to give increments to the present
petitioner henceforth as mentioned in the appointment order and as
per the applicable relevant pay commission.
E. Any other and further relief in the interest of justice may kindly
be granted.”

Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 16:42:42 IST 2026

C/SCA/16037/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240142562021)
3. The petitioner was appointed as ad hoc Lecturer (Class- II)
in respective Government Polytechnic Colleges on 28.01.2009. It
is the grievance of the petitioner that her salary was kept
stagnant and the increments were not released. It was the case
that though the work discharged by the petitioner was of the
same kind and level as was done by the similarly situated ad hoc
Lecturers who were appointed prior to May, 2008, the petitioner
was denied the equal basic pay, increments, vacation leave,
medical, LTC and other benefits.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that all the
identically situated Lecturers who were appointed prior to May,
2008, have been granted the benefits and refusal of the same to
the petitioner was manifestly arbitrary and in violation of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution.
4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the
issue involved in this petition is already decided by this Court in
Jain Soniya Rajeshkumar vs. State of Gujarat, being Special
Civil Application No.3919 of 2018 , decided by judgment dated
03.04.2019.
4.2 Learned Assistant Government Pleader could not dispute
the law laid down by this Court in Jain Soniya Rajeshkumar
(supra) and the applicability thereof to the facts of the present
case.
Page 3 of 9
Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 16:42:42 IST 2026

C/SCA/16037/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240142562021)
5. The petitioner herein is also an ad-hoc Lecturer appointed
after May, 2008. She is being paid only basic pay of Rs.8,000/- in
the aforementioned pay scale and is not given any other benefits.
She is similarly placed as the petitioner in Special Civil Application
No. 3919 of 2018. That by not extending to the petitioner the
pay scale and other identical benefits as are given to the class of
ad-hoc Lecturers appointed prior to May, 2008, the respondents
have created a class within class and they have divided the
homogeneous class of ad-hoc Lecturers.
5.1 In Jain Soniya Rajeshkumar (supra), the Court relied on the
decision in Acharya Madhavi Bhavin and 115 vs. State of
Gujarat being Special Civil Application No. 8152 of 2015 and
allied petitions, decided on 07.09.2016. In the said batch of
petitions also the petitioners were similarly situated who had
raised identical grievance that the ad-hoc Lecturers appointed
prior to May, 2008, are granted the regular pay-scale and those
appointed subsequent to May, 2008, are being deprived of the
regular pay and the incidental service benefits.
5.2 In the decision rendered in Acharya Madhavi Bhavin
(supra), this Court in the Paragraph – 65 thereof has held as
under :
“In the result, all the writ applications succeed in part. The State is
directed to put the ad hoc Lecturers appointed after May 2008 on par
with the ad hoc Lecturers appointed prior to May 2008. The ad hoc
Lecturers appointed after May 2008 shall be paid the salary and other
allowances on par with the same received by the ad hoc Lecturers
Page 4 of 9
Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 16:42:42 IST 2026

C/SCA/16037/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240142562021)
appointed prior to May 2008. Such benefits shall be granted to them
with effect from January 2015 onwards. It is directed that the
contractual Lecturers shall be paid the minimum of the pay scale so far
as the post of Lecturer is concerned with all other allowances attached
to the same with effect from January 2015.”
5.3 The aforesaid decision was carried in Letters Patent
Appeal No.1184 of 2017 along with other cognate petitions.
The said challenge was directed to the aspect that the
benefits came to be directed to be granted to the petitioners
from the year 2015 onwards and not from their initial
appointments.

5.4 The Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal,
observed and held as under :
“[8.3] Now, so far as Letters Patent Appeal No.1184/2017
preferred by the original petitioners of Special Civil Application No.
8152/2015 challenging the impugned common judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge insofar as granting the reliefs fully
with effect from January 2015 onwards only and not granting the reliefs
from their initial appointment is concerned, at the outset it is required
to be noted that as such the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
the original petitioners before the learned Single Judge heavily relied
upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sachin
Ambadas Dawale (Supra) in Writ Petition No.2046/2010 in support of
their submission that their services must be regularized from the date
of their initial appointment. However, the learned Single Judge though
observed that he could have followed the decision of the Bombay High
Court, which came to be affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court, and
could have issued the directions in tune with the one issued by the
Bombay High Court as regards regularization of service, however, he
was not inclined to issue any mandamus in that regard. The learned
Page 5 of 9
Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 16:42:42 IST 2026

C/SCA/16037/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240142562021)
Single Judge in para 64 has observed as under:
“64. I am of the view that the aforenoted Notification is in no
manner helpful to the writ applicants and could hardly be said to
be in line with the suggestion of this Court referred to above. I
could have followed the Division Bench decision of the Bombay
High Court referred to above, which came to be affirmed by the
Supreme Court, and could have issued directions in tune with
one issued by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court as
regards regularisation in service. However, for the present, I am
not inclined to issue any mandamus in this regard. At the same
time, I am of the firm view that the ad hoc Lecturers appointed
after May 2008 should be put on par with the ad hoc Lecturers
appointed prior to May 2008 and should be paid the pay scale
and other benefits accordingly. In the same way, I am of the
view that the contractual Lecturers should be paid the minimum
of the pay scale so far as the post of Lecturer is concerned with
all other allowances attached to the same.”
There is no further justification at all by the learned Single Judge to
grant the benefits after putting them at par with those appointed prior to
May 2008 from January 2015 onwards only. However, at the same time
considering the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of
Shiv Dass (Supra), the original petitioners shall be entitled to the
benefits at par with those adhoc lecturers appointed prior to May 2008
from the last 3 years preceding filing of the petition. There is no
justification at all in granting such benefits with effect from January
2015 onwards only. Once it is held that all those adhoc lecturers /
Assistant Professors appointed after May 2008 shall be put at par with
the adhoc lecturers appointed prior to May 2008, they are entitled to
such benefits for the period even prior to filing of the petitions.
However, they can be granted the benefits of last 3 years from the date
of filing of the petition only. Therefore, to the aforesaid extent the
impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single
Judge is required to be modified and Letters Patent Appeal
No.1184/2017 is required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Considering various decisions of the Honble Supreme Court as well as
this Court, the original petitioners who as such are appointed as adhoc
lecturers and till the regular selected GPSC candidates are available,
the learned Single Judge has right not granted the relief of
regularization, however at the same time has rightly put them at par
Page 6 of 9
Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 16:42:42 IST 2026

C/SCA/16037/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240142562021)
with other similarly situated employees insofar as the salary and other
benefits are concerned. The impugned judgment and order passed by
the learned Single Judge is absolutely in consonance with the decision
of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (Supra). In the
aforesaid decision the Honble Supreme Court in para 42.2, 42.3, 42.6
and 42.7 has observed and held as under :
“42.2 The mere fact that the subject post occupied by the
claimant, is in a different department vis-a-vis the reference
post, does not have any bearing on the determination of a claim,
under the principle of equal pay for equal work. Persons
discharging identical duties, cannot be treated differently, in the
matter of their pay, merely because they
belong to different departments of Government (see Randhir
Singh case7 and D.S. Nakara case).
42.3 The principle of equal pay for equal work, applies to
cases of unequal scales of pay, based on no classification or
irrational classification (see Randhir Singh case7). For equal
pay, the concerned employees with whom equation is sought,
should be performing work, which besides being functionally
equal, should be of the same quality and sensitivity (see
Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise
Stenographers case9, Mewa Ram Kanojia case11, Grih Kalyan
Kendra Workers Union case6 and S.C. Chandra case).
42.6 For placement in a regular pay scale, the claimant has to
be a regular appointee. The claimant should have been
selected, on the basis of a regular process of recruitment. An
employee appointed on a temporary basis, cannot claim to be
placed in the regular payscale (see Orissa University of
Agriculture & Technology case).
42.7 Persons performing the same or similar functions, duties
and responsibilities, can also be placed in different pay scales.
Such as selection grade, in the same post. But this difference
must emerge out of a legitimate foundation, such as merit, or
seniority, or some other relevant criteria (see State of U.P. v.
J.P. Chaurasia)”
[9.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
Page 7 of 9
Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 16:42:42 IST 2026

C/SCA/16037/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240142562021)
Letters Patent Appeal Nos.1354/2017, 1359/2017 and 2148/2017
preferred by the appellant original respondents State Authorities
deserve to be dismissed and are, accordingly, dismissed. Letters
Patent Appeal No.1184/2017 in Special Civil Application No.8152/2015
preferred by the original petitioners of Special Civil Application
No.8152/2015 is hereby partly allowed and the impugned judgment
and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil
Application No.8152/2015 is hereby modified to the extent it is held
that the original petitioners shall be entitled to the salary and other
benefits at par with those adhoc lecturers appointed prior to May 2008
and they shall be granted such benefit from the last 3 years preceding
the filing of the petition i.e. from 2012 onwards. No costs.”
6. Thus, the Division Bench partly allowed the Letters Patent
Appeal against the judgment in Special Civil Application No.8152
of 2015, and directed that the petitioners shall be entitled to
salary and other benefits at par with those ad-hoc Lecturers
appointed prior to May, 2008 and that they shall be granted such
benefits from the last three years preceding the filing of the
petition, that is from 2012 onwards.
6.1 The present petitioner constitutes the same class and is
entitled to the same relief by treating her with parity.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed by directing the
respondents to grant to the petitioner the pay and payscale as
well as the annual increments and other incidental benefits at par
with the other ad-hoc Lecturers appointed prior to May, 2008.
The relief and the directions given by this Court in Acharya
Madhavi Bhavin (supra), as modified by the Letters Patent
Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.1184 of 2017 shall govern the
case of the present petitioner also.
Page 8 of 9
Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 16:42:42 IST 2026

C/SCA/16037/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240142562021)
7. The present petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made
absolute to the said extent.
Sd/-
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
SALIM/
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 16:42:42 IST 2026