Bhavinbhai Mahendrabhai Vyas vs State Of Gujarat & Ors

Maulik J.Shelat, J

Heard Mr.Manan K. Paneri, learned advocate for the petitioner, Ms.Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP for the respondent State and Mr.R.V.Deshmukh, learned advocate for respondent No.4.

The present petition is filed under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :

"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondents no. 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the respondent no.4 for not complying with the orders dated 27.01.2014, 12.02.2014, 28.04.2016 as well as the order dated 06.01.2016 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Special Civil Application no. 20760 of 2015, in the interest of justice;

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondent authorities, more particularly, respondents no.1, 2 and 3 to pass appropriate orders of transfer of the petitioner from respondent no.4 to any other appropriate nearby place pursuant to the order dated 27.01.2014, in the interest of justice.

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent authorities to pay the salary due and payable to the petitioner pursuant to the appointment order dated 03.03.2014 and also to pay the arrears without further delay or within such time limit as may be deemed fit, just and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice;

(D) Pending admission hearing and till final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to transfer and post the petitioner to any other nearby place from the post on which the petitioner was posted i.e. Joshipura, for the purpose of performing his service apropos the order dated 27.01.2014, in the interest of justice;"

As such, the issue germane in the matter is squarely covered by the decisions of the Coordinate Benches of this Court dated 26.12.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.14225 of 2017 and allied matters as well as dated 26.09.2025 passed in Special Civil Application Nos.15435 of 2024 and allied matters and after hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties, I am also of the considered view that the directions issued in the aforesaid decisions can be issued in this matter.

Before passing such order, the brief facts of the case needs to be referred to which are as under.

4.1 The petitioner was appointed with respondent No.4 which is a grant-in-aid institution as a Steno-cum-Computer Operator on 01.08.2005 on contractual basis. The contract of the petitioner was renewed from time to time. As per the Circular dated 06.06.2000 issued by respondent No.1, respondent No.4 requested respondent No.2 to regularize the services of the petitioner. Thereafter, it appears that the contract of the petitioner was not renewed from 28.02.2010, but he was allowed to continue in service with hope that his services will be regularized. Eventually, the services of the petitioner came to be regularized by respondent No.1 - State vide its Resolution dated 27.01.2014 and necessary order in this regard was passed on 12.02.2014. Accordingly, the petitioner was put in the regular pay-scale of Rs.4500-7000/-and by giving benefit of 6th Pay Commission, he was put in the pay-scale of Rs.5200-20200/-, which was given w.e.f. 21.07.2007.

4.2 Thereafter, the post on which the petitioner was serving got abolished and he became surplus in the institute and upon not receiving any grant, respondent No.4 stopped paying any salary to the petitioner. It is a stance of the respondent that there is no policy of the State to accommodate the petitioner in any other I.T.I. and/or institution. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition.

At the outset, I have observed that the issue germane to this matter is squarely covered by the above referred decisions passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court, even after hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties, there are no new facts brought to the notice of this Court whereby any different view can be taken by this Court than already taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

Since the first decision was passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.V.Anjaria, as His Lordship then were) dated 26.12.2019 in Special Civil Application No.14225 of 2017, referred to in the subsequent decision dated 26.09.2025 passed in Special Civil Application No.15435 of 2024 and allied matters, I would like to refer few passages of the subsequent decision, which reads thus :

"2. By way of these petitions, the petitioners inter alia raise a grievance as regards the petitioners not being absorbed in other Industrial Training Institutions (ITIs), in spite of vacancies available, upon being declared surplus, more particularly on the ground that the State does not have any policy of absorbing surplus employees of such nature.

It would appear in this regard that interim orders had been passed by this Court in Special Civil Applications No. 9990/2025, 9992/2025, 10439/2025 and 11265/2025 and whereas, pursuant to the interim order, it has been informed by learned AGP that a proposal has been sent by the concerned department for absorbing the petitioners in other ITIs where vacancies in the subject in which the petitioners were instructors were available.

3.1. Insofar as the other petitions are concerned, this Court had also called upon the learned AGP to get instructions as regards available vacancies in other ITIs more particularly as co-relatable with the subjects in which the petitioners were instructors or in non-teaching posts and whereas, today, learned AGP has tendered a list of 21 category of teaching and non-teaching vacancies and whereas, considering the same, it would appear that all the petitioners of these petitions could be accommodated in ITIs where vacancies of the nature of work the petitioners were doing, are available.

At this stage, this Court seeks to rely upon observations made by learned Coordinate Bench of this Court (Coram: Mr. N.V. Anjaria, J. as His Lordship then were) in Special Civil Application No. 14225/2017 vide judgment dated 26.12.2019 whereby the learned Coordinate Bench had directed absorption of the petitioners therein on equivalent posts in other ITIs. Paragraphs No. 13 and 14 of the said decision being relevant for the present purpose, are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:-

"13. From the above facts, it could be seen that similarly placed employees who were once declared surplus, came to be absorbed in the different institutes or industrial centers. The petitioners have also given details of the various centers where the vacancies are stated to be available. The mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution requires that the persons belonging to homogenous class shall be meted out similar treatment. The present petitioners, are therefore required to be treated in the same manner in the matter of absorption as the similarly situated surplus employees named in the foregoing paragraphs have been treated. The action on part of the respondents in not absorbing the petitioners even though the absorption is possible on the available vacancies, would tantamount to breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

In view of the above discussion, the petitioners of all the petitions except those already retired as mentioned above, would deserve the relief. Accordingly, all the petitions are disposed of by directing that the case of all the petitioners for absorption shall be considered positively keeping in view that similarly situated surplus employees have been absorbed in the different Industrial Training Institutes. The petitioners shall be entitled to be treated in similar way. The order for them shall be issued by the authorities to absorb them on the vacancies as may be available, within six weeks from the date of receipt of the present."

Having regard to the observations of the learned Coordinate Bench and whereas, since it appears that the said decision is still a good law and also having regard to the chart tendered across the bar by learned AGP, while it would appear that the petitioners would be entitled for claiming absorption on vacancies as available for equivalent posts in ITIs, it would also appear to this Court that as such, there are vacancies available in equivalent post in other ITIs, under such circumstances, to this Court, it would appear that nothing further is required to be done except directing the State to take appropriate steps to ensure that the petitioners, except those petitioners in whose case proposal has already been sent by the State, are absorbed in equivalent vacancies within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

5.1. In cases of such petitioners where the proposal has already been sent by the State, the appointment shall be ensured by the State within a period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

*** *** ***

5.3. Furthermore, the petitioners, while they would be entitled for continuity of service, they would not be entitled for salary in the interregnum and whereas, the same shall be treated as notional.

*** *** ***

6.1. The State is directed to look into the above issue and take an appropriate decision within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order and whereas, the State shall also take into consideration the fact that most of the petitioners referred to hereinabove were under the protection of this Court and the claim of the petitioners is as regards the salary not being paid for the period before the petitioners were relieved or the petitioners having been relieved even though they were protected by the order of this Court.

6.2. In case the decision taken by the State is against the interest of the petitioners, it would be open for the petitioners to agitate the same before appropriate forum in accordance with law."

(emphasis supplied)

Ms.Vyas, learned AGP would submit that the department concerned has already forwarded the proposal of the petitioner vide its communication dated 23.01.2020 and due to some query raised by the respondent-State, it is pending till date.

Be that as it may, when the Coordinate Benches of this Court in similar set of facts and circumstances like the present one passed the aforesaid orders, on similar line, this Court would like to issue directions to the State.

Hence, I pass the following order :

8.1 The respondent - State is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner /pending proposal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

8.2 While deciding the case of the petitioner, the Competent Authority is directed to take into account the directions issued by this Court in its decisions dated 26.12.2019 and 26.09.2025 as referred to hereinabove.

8.3 It goes without saying that in a case where any adverse decision will be taken by the State against the interest of the petitioner, it would be open for the petitioner to agitate the same before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law.

8.4 Before parting, it is hope and trust that the Competent Authority will grant the benefits as granted to the other similarly situated persons like the petitioner.

With the aforesaid observations, directions and reasons, the present petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute, to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.

Direct service is permitted.