Service shall be treated as continuous from initial appointment with all consequential benefits upon quashing of adverse orders.

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 19.02.2021 passed by the respondent authorities.

The petitioner sought to quash the order and requested a direction to the respondents to treat his service as continuous from the original date of appointment without any breaks.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the Office of the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Ahmedabad, issued a communication dated 10.03.2023, which recalled the withdrawal of benefits previously implemented by the impugned order.

Whether the impugned order dated 19.02.2021, which effectively denied continuity of service, should be quashed and set aside.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to be treated as being in continuous service from the date of initial appointment with all consequential benefits.

The court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It relied on the principle of consistency and judicial discipline, noting that the legal issue was squarely covered by the precedent set by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in its judgment dated 15.07.2024 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 129 of 2024 (Special Civil Application No. 3813 of 2021).

The court evaluated the impact of subsequent developments during the litigation, specifically the state’s communication dated 10.03.2023, which recalled the withdrawal of the petitioner’s benefits.

The court noted the submission by the petitioner’s counsel that the matter was no longer res integra as it was covered by a recent Division Bench judgment concerning similar service conditions.

Given that the respondent authorities had already initiated the recall of the adverse order and the legal question was settled by higher bench precedents, the court determined that the impugned order of 19.02.2021 could not be sustained and must be set aside to ensure the petitioner receives the benefit of continuous service.

It held that the petitioner must be treated as being in continuous service from the date of his initial appointment without any breaks.

The respondents were directed to grant all consequential benefits arising from the quashing of the said order.

Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.