AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Biren Vaishnav, J
RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Meet K. Thakkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent â€" State.
With the consent of the learned counsels for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today.
The case of the petitioners is that they are entitled to counting their entire length of service from the date of their appointments till the date of their
retirement and the denial of the same be treated as illegal.
It is pointed out by Mr.Joshi learned counsel for the petitioners that the issue is covered by the decision of this Court rendered by this Court in
Special Civil Application No.22980 of 2019, wherein this Court while dealing with the issue considering the decision of the Division Bench rendered in
Letters Patent Appeal No.1567 of 2018 and allied matters on 28.12.2018, the petition was allowed.
The said order reads as under:
“RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Meet K. Thakkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent â€" State as well as Mr.
Alkesh N. Shah, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for the concerned respondent Nos.2 to 6.
With the consent of the learned counsels for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today.
The short issue involved in this petition is with regard to extend the benefits of the GR dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner who is an employee
of respondent No.2.
The facts in brief are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 26.2.1980 and he retired from service on 30.6.2018. The case of the
petitioner is that he being extended the benefit of GR dated 17.10.1988, his past service for the purposes of pension should be granted from
the initial date of joining and also be given the benefit of leave encashment.
Mr. V.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision dated 27.7.2005 of this Court in LPA No.326 of 1999.
He would submit that once the order of termination was set aside and the petitioner is granted continuity of service, past service for the
purposes of benefits of GR dated 17.10.1988 ought to be considered.
Mr. Alkesh Shah, learned counsel for the respondents rely on an affidavit filed on behalf of the department. He would draw the attention of
the Court to Paragraph No.8 of the reply, inasmuch as, only on completion of ten years of service, the period is to be counted from that date
for the purposes of pension.
In the case of State of Gujarat and another v. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas and ohters dated 2.5.2000 passed in Special Civil Application
No.5699 of 1987 and allied matter, so confirmed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.1567 of 2018 and allied matters on
28.12.2018, this Court has held as under:
“12 The sequence of events therefore suggests that more than once the issue which was before the learned Single Judge in the impugned
judgment was set at rest, and therefore, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge did not commit any error of law in directing the present
appellants to follow the judgments in letter and spirit and confer upon the petitioners all the benefits as indicated in the judgment in the
case of Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra)., and also the judgments in the table above.
13 We are at pains to observe that even the learned Single Judge while allowing these petitions, observed as under:
“In such a scenario, it would be a sheer waste of time, money and energy for this Court to reinvest the said resources to address the issue
identical to the one decided by the Division Bench of this Court. In such a context, this Court in V.A. Parekh Vs. State of Gujarat [2009 (5)
GLR 3922] made following observations:
“(1) It is immaterial that in a previous litigation the particular petitioner before the Court was or was not a party, but if law on a
particular point has been laid down by the High Court, it must be followed by all authorities and Tribunals in the State.
(2) The law laid down by the High Court must be followed by all authorities and subordinate Tribunals when it has been declared by the
highest Court in the State and they cannot ignore it either in initiating proceeding of deciding on the rights involved in such a proceeding.
(3) If in spite of the earlier exposition of law by the High Court having been pointed out and attention being pointedly drawn to that legal
position in utter disregard of that position proceedings are initiated, it must be held to be a willful disregard of the law laid down by the
High Court and would amount to civil contempt as defined in Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.†Further, this Court in
SCA No.28470 of 2007 & allied matters, has made following observations in paragraph Nos.6, 8 and 9:
“6. In the opinion of this Court, once this Court settles the law, unless subsequently unsettled by the Higher Forum, it binds the State and
it is the constitutional duty of the State to confer similar benefits to similarly situated persons without asking, in view of the equality clause
contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It appears that ignoring the above referred constitutional position, each
individual department of the State sticks to its individual view rather than abiding by law declared by this Court. Such an approach, in the
opinion of this Court, is contrary to public interest.
It is noticed that this Court is flooded with number of identical matters, as noticed in Paragraph7. Number of decisions are rendered,
reiterating the same issue over and over again. Once the High Court concludes a question of law, it has to be acted upon to the benefit of
all similarly situated beneficiaries, irrespective of their filing the petition or other legal proceedings for claiming such benefits. If the
judgment of the High Court settling the legal position is not implemented in the aforementioned manner, identical cases will go on
multiplying, resulting into flooding of the litigation in already overburdened Courts. Not only that, considerable public time, money and
energy gets involved in the avoidable litigation.
At times, it is noticed that different departments of the State would take their individual stand, contrary to the stand taken by the other
department on the same or similar matter, perhaps because of lack of coordination between the two or more departments. It would be, thus,
appropriate if the State evolves a policy to avoid the avoidable litigation as aforesaid. In fact, the State has already declared its litigation
policy and it is desirable that under the said policy, the issue discussed in Paragraphs8 and 9 is addressed by the State to save public time,
money and energy in avoidable litigation.â€
14 We are in complete agreement with the learned Single Judge and observe that there was no reason for the State to indulge into such
litigious perseverance in spite of the issue having been settled as above. The present group of Letters Patent Appeals is accordingly
dismissed.â€
In view of the aforesaid decision, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of GR dated 17.10.1988 in
accordance with the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.958 of 2011 dated 18.3.2011, inasmuch as, the
petitioner shall be entitled to leave encashment and counting of service form the date of joining for the purposes of pension.
The compliance of the direction be carried out by respondent No.5 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
order. Rule is made absolute. No costs.
Direct Service is permitted.â€
Mr.Meet Thakkar learned AGP would submit that relying on the affidavit that a proposal has been sent to the department for granting the
appropriate benefit considering the entire length of service of the petitioners.
In view of the aforesaid decision, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of GR dated 17.10.1988 in accordance
with the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.958 of 2011 dated 18.3.2011, inasmuch as, the petitioner shall be entitled to
leave encashment and counting of service form the date of joining for the purposes of pension.
The compliance of the direction be carried out by respondent No.2 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Rule is made absolute. No costs.
Direct Service is permitted.