Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 24 (GUJ)

State Of Gujarat v. Ghelabhai Vajabhai Satiya

2026-01-20

BHARGAV D.KARIA, L.S.PIRZADA

body2026
JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA) 1. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Shruti Dhruve appearing for the appellants and learned Senior Advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta with learned advocate Ms.Aditi S. Raol appearing for the respondent on advance copy. 2. The present appeal has been preferred by the present appellants-original respondents, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the Order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 18867 of 2018, whereby the petition filed by the original petitioner (herein after referred to as 'the respondent') came to be allowed. 3. The factual matrix of the present appeal is that the respondent was working as a daily-wage worker under the Range Forest Officer, Vallabhipur Range, in the office of the appellants since 01.07.2010 and had been engaged in the work of maintenance of nurseries in the Range. The respondent was neither getting the minimum wages prevailing in the State, nor were getting any other benefits or perquisites in the nature of allowances extended to the respondent and his wages were fixed on a piece-rate basis without any other allowance or benefits. 3.1 It is the case of the respondent that no regular pay scale was given to him even after a period of more than 8 years of service as a daily wager and on reaching the age of superannuation, the respondent would not be entitled to retirement benefits such as pension, provident fund, gratuity or any other kind of leave such as casual leave, earned leave or medical leave. 3.2 It is also the case of the respondent that daily- wagers of the Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpasar Department and of the Roads and Buildings Department, who were otherwise equal to the respondent in all respects were entitled to a scheme launched by Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 issued by the Roads and Buildings Department which gave a quasi- permanent status to them and even though the Forest and Environment Department finds mention in the preamble of the said Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, it was not made applicable to the daily-wagers of the Forest and Environment Department. 3.3 It is the case of the respondent that the said Government Resolution was selectively applied to the daily-wagers of the Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpasar Department and of the Roads and Buildings Department. 3.3 It is the case of the respondent that the said Government Resolution was selectively applied to the daily-wagers of the Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpasar Department and of the Roads and Buildings Department. 3.4 Thereafter being aggrieved by the said Government Resolution, the daily-wagers of the Forest Department filed various Writ Petitions before this Court since 2008 and the matter reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petitions (C) No.13619-13620 of 2012 preferred by the appellants against the Oral Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2012 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1754 of 2011 and Letters Patent Appeal No.88 of 2012. The Hon'ble Apex Court by its Judgment dated 09.07.2013 in State of Gujarat v. PWD Employees' Union and Ors. in Civil Appeal No.5321-5322 of 2013 reported in (2013) 12 SCC 417 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.13619-13620 of 2012, directed the State Government to grant the benefits of the scheme as contained in Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to all the daily- wage workers of the Forests and Environment Department who had worked for more than 5 years. 3.5 Pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, Special Civil Application No.13240 of 2012 and other connected matters came to be disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide Common Oral Judgment dated 16.04.2014 wherein this Court allowed the petition, directing the appellant to examine and decide the cases of all the petitioners individually as per the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in para 26 of its aforesaid decision dated 09.07.2013 in the case of PWD Employees' Union and Ors. (supra) . Pursuant to this decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and decision of this Court, the Forest Department of the State of Gujarat issued a Government Resolution dated 15.09.2014 extending the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the daily-wagers working under the Forest and Environment Department. (supra) . Pursuant to this decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and decision of this Court, the Forest Department of the State of Gujarat issued a Government Resolution dated 15.09.2014 extending the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the daily-wagers working under the Forest and Environment Department. 3.6 Further, the respondent made several requests to the appellants for extending the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988; however, no positive response came forth and therefore, the respondent was constrained to file a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 20494 of 2017, praying for extending the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the respondent and vide oral order dated 26.04.2018, the aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 20494 of 2017 was disposed of, directing the appellants to examine the case of the respondent and extend the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, if found eligible, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PWD Employees' Union and Ors. (supra), within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the said order. By letter dated 06.08.2018, the present appellant No.4 rejected the claim of the respondent for grant of benefit under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 3.7 Thereafter, the present respondent filed Special Civil Application No.18867 of 2018 before this Court for grant of benefit under the Forest and Environment Department Government Resolution dated 15.09.2014, mainly on the ground that the respondent had not worked for more than 240 days in any year and had worked on a piece-rate basis only and that as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, only daily wagers are eligible for the benefits as prayed for in the said writ petition. The following reliefs are prayed for: “A. Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for the benefits under Government Resolution 17.10.1988, vide vide letter dated 06.08.2018 from respondent no. 4, as bad in law, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, opposed to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 09.07.2013 passed in PWD Employees' Union matter and the directions of this Hon'ble Court in its oral order dated 26.04.2018 passed in Special Civil Application no. 4, as bad in law, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, opposed to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 09.07.2013 passed in PWD Employees' Union matter and the directions of this Hon'ble Court in its oral order dated 26.04.2018 passed in Special Civil Application no. 20494 of 2017, and thus violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India and quashing and setting aside the same; B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent authorities to extend the benefits as contained in Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 09.07.2013 (reported in 2013 (8) Scale 579 ) to the petitioner from the date he became eligible for such benefits with all the consequential benefits, including arrears of pay and allowances;” 4. It is the further case of the respondent that during the pendency of Special Civil Application No. 18867 of 2018, the respondent came to be orally terminated, followed by communication dated 06.05.2019 and the appellants failed to reinstate the respondent on the original post with consequential benefits, including arrears of benefits and continuity of service. The learned Single Judge, upon considering the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties in Special Civil Application No. 18867 of 2018, was pleased to allow the said petition of the respondent vide Judgment dated 04.09.2024 and directed reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service and further directed the present appellants to extend the consequential benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Shruti Dhruve has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing Special Civil Application No. 18867 of 2018, as the present respondent was not similarly situated to the writ petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos.3966 of 2016 and 7638 of 2016 and other matters, as the original petitioner was a piece-rate worker and is distinct and different from a daily wager and therefore, the respondent was not entitled to get the benefit flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Further, it is submitted that the respondent has not worked for more than 240 days in a year and, therefore, the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 cannot be extended to the respondent and prayed to allow the appeal. Further, it is submitted that the respondent has not worked for more than 240 days in a year and, therefore, the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 cannot be extended to the respondent and prayed to allow the appeal. 6. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms. Aditi S. Raol submitted that the Order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper and does not require any interference, as the present matter is already covered by the decision of this Division Bench of this Court. 7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the present respondent was working with the Forest Department since 2010. As per the case of the original petitioner, he was working as a daily- wager, whereas the present appellants - Department has submitted that he was working as a Piece-rate Worker. 8. In this regard, it is required to consider the findings recorded by this Court in the Judgment dated 08.12.2025 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1255 of 2025, whereby the appeal was dismissed, by observing as under: “12. I have perused the record of the petitions and relevant materials placed on record. I have also gone through the impugned orders passed by the respondents-authorities and the relevant papers. 13. So far as the issue of making representations to the respondents- authorities is concerned the said issue is already covered by the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.3966 of 2016 vide order dated 22.1.2020. Furthermore, in view of the observations made in paragraph No.9 of the order dated 22.1.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.3966 of 2016, I am of the opinion that there is no need to make any representation with regard to benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the respondents- authorities. 14. As discussed earlier vide order dated 22.1.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.3966 of 2016 benefits arising out of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 were granted to the similarly situated employees which was subsequently confirmed by the division bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 83 of 2021 vide order dated 13.1.2021 and further confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 4.2.2022 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.12097 of 2021. Further, in view of the judgment of this Court in Special Civil Application No.17721 of 2015 and allied matters wherein oral termination is declared as null and void and therefore, same principles requires to be applicable in present case also. 15. In view of the above facts and considering the observations made by this Court in above referred judgments, the respondents-authorities are hereby directed to reinstate all the three petitioners along with continuity of service and recalculate the consequential benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and pay the same to the petitioners, keeping in mind their length of services and last wage which was received on the date of their oral termination, within period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of the of present order. 16. Accordingly present petitions are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in each of the petition to aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted” 9. Learned Single Judge with regard to the oral termination of the respondent has held as under: “7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner herein was appointed on piece rate basis in the office of the respondent No.5 - Forest and Environment Department on 01.07.2010. By preferring the present petition, vide order dated 06.12.2018, the service conditions of the petitioner was directed not to be varied/disturbed to the detriment of the petitioner. In-spite of the aforesaid order dated 06.12.2018, pending the present petition the petitioner was orally terminated by the respondent authority. Further, while considering the documents on record, by order dated 26.04.2018 in Special Civil Application No.20494 of 2017, the respondent authority was directed to examine the case of the petitioner for entitlement of the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 19.10.1988 keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In-spite of the aforesaid directions, the respondent authority declined to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 mainly, on the ground that the petitioner has not completed 240 days of work between June, 2010 to 29.10.2010 as also, the petitioner was a piece rate worker.” 10. In-spite of the aforesaid directions, the respondent authority declined to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 mainly, on the ground that the petitioner has not completed 240 days of work between June, 2010 to 29.10.2010 as also, the petitioner was a piece rate worker.” 10. Further, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajeshbhai Khodabhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat in Letters Patent Appeal No.96 of 2023 after considering the decision of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Ashok Laxmanbhai Parmar, in Letters Patent Appeal No.1268 of 2017, held as under: “4. The learned Single Judge referred to decision of this Court in Prabhatbhai Narsangbhai Mudhwa Vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Civil Application No. 14661 of 2019 decided on 27.11.2019 as well as the decision in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Ashok Laxmanbhai Parmar rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1268 of 2017 , wherein the Courts had considered the question of treating the service interpreting the term "continuous service". It was noted that when the Labour Court had awarded the benefit of continuity of service, it was not open for the employer to question the said benefit by denying the application of Resolution dated 17.10.1988 from the date of initial appointment. 4.1 Learned Single Judge noted that the Labour Court had opined in favour of the petitioners that the petitioners had completed 240 days of continuous service, however on the ground of delay, the petition was dismissed. 4.2 Learned Single Judge too the view that the order dated 22.12.2014 sought to be called in question in respect of non-grant of continuity of service after passage of five years, it was observed in the impugned order, "The order that was subsequently passed of reinstating the petitioner of 22.10.2014 with condition no.4 which denied benefits of resolution dated 17.10.1988 was not challenged by the petitioner. It cannot be therefore said that the cause of action to challenge the order would revive on a case being decided by this court in the case of Prabhatbai Mudhwa (supra). Certainly it was not a case where similarly situated employees had approached this Court for setting aside the order which denied the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988. It cannot be therefore said that the cause of action to challenge the order would revive on a case being decided by this court in the case of Prabhatbai Mudhwa (supra). Certainly it was not a case where similarly situated employees had approached this Court for setting aside the order which denied the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988. Even otherwise, the communication that was challenged in the case of Prabhatbhai Mudhwa (supra) was of 13.05.2019 in a petition filed in the same year. In the present case, the petition is filed after a period of five years after the date of order of reinstatement. On the ground of delay alone, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed." 4.3 The decision in Prabhatbhai Mudhwa (supra) referred to by the petitioners had similar facts. The petitioners prayed for grant of gratuity, leave encashment and pensionary benefits in light of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and the petitioners had raised industrial dispute before the Labour Court and Labour Court had granted as per its judgment and award, reinstatement with continuity of service to the petitioner employees. 4.4 The contention of the petitioners was that when the judgment and award of Labour Court granted them continuity of service and same was confirmed by the higher courts, the benefits arising from Resolution dated 17.10.1988 would be available to them as necessary corollary. The following observations of the Court in Prabhatbhai Mudhwa (supra) in paragraph 5 may be noticed with relevance, "It is an admitted fact fact that the petitioners have served since 1988 upto 31.3.1998; their services came to be terminated and they were reinstated on 13.5.2019 after the judgment and award of labour court, which granted them continuity of service. Therefore, it would necessarily follow that entire period of service of the petitioners from the respective date in the year 1988 till reinstatement or retirement, as the case may be, would have to be counted as continuous either based on actual service rendered or notionally in view of the continuity benefit conferred by the labour court." 4.5 The Court further observed after noticing that the judgment and award of the Labour Court was confirmed by this Court in Special Civil Applications, which were dismissed, "...in para-5 of the impugned communication, the petitioners were specifically denied the benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It was stated that the petitioners would be entitled to minimum wages only. It was stated that the petitioners would be entitled to minimum wages only. In the same way, those petitioners who have retired with effect from 31.7.2017 have also been denied the benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988, which otherwise would have to be granted to them in the facts of the case. Respondent No.2 authority has evidently ignored and disregarded the effect in law required to be given to the judgment and award of the labour court confirmed by this court as above in denying the benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The benefits flowing therefrom have to be accorded to the petitioners taking into account their respective factual matrix of services." 5. The Division Bench in Ashok Laxmanbhai Parmar (supra), dealt with similar set of facts and the grievance to observe thus, extracting from paragraph 5, "...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." 5.1 It was further observed that when the workman was forced to leave duties on account of unlawful termination by the employer, the employer cannot take benefit of its own illegal action to deny continuity of service, which was otherwise granted by the lower court. 5.1.1 It was further stated in paragraph 5 by the Division Bench, “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. 5.1.1 It was further stated in paragraph 5 by the Division Bench, “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 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. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the following decisions, has reiterated the principles of substantive nature of the roles of temporary service and continuous service akin to be permanent employee as under: (i) In case of Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court finds merit in the appellants' arguments and holds that their service conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular status. The failure to recognize the substantive nature of their roles and their continuous service akin to permanent employees runs counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations. (ii) In case of Jaggo Vs. Union Of India (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "19. It is evident from the foregoing that the appellants' roles were not only essential but also indistinguishable from those of regular employees. Their sustained contributions over extended periods, coupled with absence of any adverse record, warrant equitable treatment and regularization of their services. Denial of this benefit, followed by their arbitrary termination, amounts to manifest injustice and must be rectified. 22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations." (iii) In case of Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Anr. (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: “Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad-hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running." 12. Further, the argument advanced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that a daily wager and the present respondent, being a piece rate wager, cannot be said to be similarly situated, cannot be sustained because as per Section 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, wages would mean all type of remuneration capable of being expressed in terms of money which would be payable to workmen if the terms of his employment whether express or implied were fulfilled by him. 13. In view of the above dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court and considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that the decision of the learned Single Judge is just and proper and does not require any interference, as a piece rate wager can also to be termed as a daily wager, and therefore, they are entitled to the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 14. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the respondent–workman is entitled to the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 as held by the learned Single Judge in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 15. 14. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the respondent–workman is entitled to the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 as held by the learned Single Judge in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 15. In view of the above, the appeal being devoid of any merits is accordingly dismissed. 16. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the Civil Application would not survive and the same also stands disposed of.