Gujarat High Court
Veraval Patan Joint Nagarpalika vs Garvi Gujarat General Kamdar Mandal on 22 September, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/12/2024 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 12 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/15385/2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 12 of 2024
=============================================
VERAVAL PATAN JOINT NAGARPALIKA
Versus
GARVI GUJARAT GENERAL KAMDAR MANDAL & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR DEEPAK P SANCHELA(2696) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS VAISHNAVI VERMA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 22/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal, filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, 1860, is directed against the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Application No.02 of 2023 (for Condonation of Delay) in filing Misc. Civil Application (for Review) No.1 of 2023, whereby the learned Single Judge has refused to condone the delay in filing the review application preferred against the ex parte order dated 29.08.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.15385 of 2017. By the said order, the petition filed by the present appellant challenging the award dated 12.05.2017 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference IT No.98 of 2006, came to be dismissed.
2. Learned advocate Mr.Deepak Sanchela, appearing for the appellant, has vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the appellant - Municipality had Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:03:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/12/2024 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined already filed Misc. Civil Application (for Review) No.1 of 2020 along with the Civil Application (for Condonation fo Delay) No.2 of 2020, however, immediately thereafter, the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic and nationwide lockdowns ensued, during which period only urgent matters were being entertained by this Court. It is submitted that subsequently, when inquiries were made before the Registry regarding the status of the said MCA, despite repeated efforts and several failed searches, the appellants were informed that the papers of the said MCA were not traceable. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration the binding order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, wherein the period of limitation was directed to be excluded for the purposes of calculating delay on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is urged that the appellant is entitled to exclusion of the said period while computing the delay.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Sanchela has further submitted that the learned Single Judge committed an error in overlooking the settled legal position that regularization cannot be directed in absence of sanctioned and vacant posts. Despite this settled law, the Industrial Tribunal had directed the regularization of 21 workmen, even though the appellant - Municipality neither had sanctioned posts available nor vacancies to absorb them. It is a well-settled proposition of law that such directions for regularization cannot be sustained when no posts are available. On these grounds, it is urged that the present appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge.
Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:03:29 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/12/2024 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined
4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav Vyas, appearing for respondent No. 1, has submitted that the issue raised in the present appeal is no longer res integra, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2025 INSC 998 (passed in Civil Appeal No. 8858 of 2018, decided on 19.08.2025).
5. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
6. The facts, as recorded by the learned Single Judge in paragraph No.6, while referring to the service details, are not in dispute. We reiterate the same as under: -
"6. It will be proper for this Court to reproduce in a tabular form which has been reproduced by the Tribunal to indicate the dates of appointments and the designations of the workmen involved. The service details read as under:
Sr. Name Designation Date of entry Department No. 1 Katariya Wireman 01/04/90 Streetlight Lakhmanbhai branch Jodhabhai 2 Nilesh Prabhudas Wireman 19/02/92 Streetlight Purohit branch 3 Chimanbhai Kalidas Helper 01/06/94 Streetlight Vandarwala branch 4 Shaileshbhai Wireman 15/12/94 Streetlight Madhusudan Pathak branch 5 Dinesh Wireman 04/04/95 Streetlight Hemrajbhai branch Hariyal Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:03:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/12/2024 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined 6 Mansukh Vasa Wireman 22/04/95 Streetlight Bamaniya branch 7 Yusuf Mahamad Wireman 22/04/95 Streetlight Mothiya branch 8 Prakashbhai Driver 01/10/95 Fire-brigade Samarbhai Das branch 9 Gopal Damji Wireman 01/05/96 Streetlight Visavadiya branch 10 Manoj Vrajlal Pathak Helper 01/07/96 Streetlight branch 11 Bharatbhai Hamirbhai Helper 23/10/98 Streetlight Garchar branch 12 Jeshabhai Driver 06/11/98 Fire-brigade Kanabhai branch Vadher 13 Dotram Vadumal Helper 18/11/98 Streetlight Manek branch 14 Mohan Khima Gohel Wireman 18/11/98 Streetlight branch 15 Pravinbhai Pavitra Driver/cleaner 01/12/98 Fire-brigade Sarkar branch 16 Sanjay Mithabhai Helper 01/08/99 Streetlight Katariya branch 17 Nathabhai Jethabhai Helper 01/12/99 Streetlight Katariya branch 18 Gulabsha Helper 08/02/00 Streetlight Mahamadsha branch Shahmdar Fakir 19 Jayendra Jivubha Jethva Wireman 11/04/00 Streetlight branch 20 Rupesh Helper 01/09/01 Streetlight Chelshankar branch Thakar 21 Imransha Helper 02/01/02 Streetlight Abdulsha branch Shahmadar Faquir Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:03:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/12/2024 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined
7. The respondent - workmen had approached the Industrial Tribunal seeking the benefit of regularization of their services. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, allowed the said claim and directed regularization. This award was challenged by the appellant-Nagarpalika before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, after considering the service particulars of the concerned workmen as well as the judgments and orders of the Supreme Court governing the issue, has ultimately held as under: -
"15. Considering the position of law therefore, I find that in the present case, the Industrial Tribunal has exercised powers completely within its' domain by holding that since the respondent-- workmen have completed more than 15 to 27 years of service and having found on appreciation of evidence that they had rendered work for such a long tenure uninterruptedly, carrying out duties of permanent nature, the Tribunal did not commit any error by granting benefits of permanency as prayed for by the respondent-- workman."
8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant - Nagarpalika filed the Letters Patent Appeal No.1428 of 2023 before this Court, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2023 by the Division Bench, reserving liberty in favour of the appellant-Nagarpalika to file a review application.
9. Pursuant thereto, the appellant-Nagarpalika preferred a review application being Misc. Civil Application (for Review) No.1 of 2023, however, the said application also came to be rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground that it was filed after a delay of more than three years.
10. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:03:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/12/2024 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined Singh (supra), wherein the Supreme Court has held as under : -
"19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions:
i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above.
ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and
(b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be.
Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment.
iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgement.
iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:03:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/12/2024 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgement.
v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgement.
20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling "reconsiderations," and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
21. No order as to costs.
22. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of."
11. In view of the foregoing observations and the directions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we do not find any convincing reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, which has been passed after due consideration of the relevant facts and law. The employees have been rendering their services regularly and continuously for more than two decades, hence, they cannot be deprived of their right to regularization.
Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:03:29 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/12/2024 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined
12. Accordingly, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
13. As a sequel, the connected civil application also stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) Sd/-
(L. S. PIRZADA, J) MAHESH/31 Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:03:29 IST 2025