Gujarat High Court
Gujarat Maritime Board vs Vinaybhai Bharatbhai Rathod on 2 March, 2022
Author: R.M.Chhaya
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
C/LPA/116/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/03/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 116 of 2021
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8008 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 116 of 2021
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 52 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8010 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 52 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8010 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 77 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11400 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 77 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11400 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 3 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8005 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 3 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8005 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 4 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8007 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 4 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8007 of 2017
Page 1 of 8
Downloaded on : Mon Mar 07 20:33:53 IST 2022
C/LPA/116/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/03/2022
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 48 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17607 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 48 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17607 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 2 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17609 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 2 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17609 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 55 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11697 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 55 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11697 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 51 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17608 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 51 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17608 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 7 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7414 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 7 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7414 of 2016
Page 2 of 8
Downloaded on : Mon Mar 07 20:33:53 IST 2022
C/LPA/116/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/03/2022
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 50 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7083 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 50 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7083 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 8 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17610 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 8 of 2020
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17610 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 119 of 2021
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8009 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 119 of 2021
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8009 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 118 of 2021
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8007 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 118 of 2021
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8007 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 117 of 2021
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8005 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 117 of 2021
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8005 of 2017
Page 3 of 8
Downloaded on : Mon Mar 07 20:33:53 IST 2022
C/LPA/116/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/03/2022
================================================================
GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD
Versus
VINAYBHAI BHARATBHAI RATHOD
================================================================
Appearance:
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MS HARSHAL N PANDYA(3141) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 02/03/2022
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the common judgment and order dated 12.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.7759 of 2019 and other allied petitions, the Gujarat Maritime Board has filed Letters Patent Appeal Nos.116/2021, 119/2021, 118/2021 and 117/2021 and the respective original petitioners have filed Letters Patent Appeal Nos.52/2020, 77/2020, 3/2020, 4/2020, 48/2020, 2/2020, 55/2020, 51/2020, 7/2020, 50/2020 and 8/2020.
2. The common question of fact and identical facts arise in these appeals and, therefore, all the appeals are taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common order.
Page 4 of 8 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 07 20:33:53 IST 2022C/LPA/116/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/03/2022
3. Suffice it to note that in the main writ petitions filed in each of the appeals, the original petitioners prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction to grant lump sum compensation in view of the policy of the authorities contained in the Government Resolutions dated 20.02.2006 and 25.04.2012. After threadbare considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the learned Single Judge passed an equitable order and observed in paragraph no.24 as under:
[24] This group of petitions, in which, the petitioners are permitted to make representation, as a last chance, is also keeping in view the circumstances that in some of the petitions, the decisions have not been taken and further as has been agitated that other similarly situated persons have been considered for the benefits and for that purpose, the petitioners have relied upon three decisions delivered by the co-ordinate Bench. Therefore, over all issues will have to be re-examined by the authorities and for that purpose, the Court deems it proper to dispose of this group of petitions with following directions which would meet the ends of justice:
(i) However, since the respondent authorities have indicated that if the petitioners would like to make representation, as a last chance, the authorities may consider the case and re-examined as to whether the petitioners are entitled to such benefits as claimed or not, and therefore, without expressing much on the merit of the claim of petitioners, the Court would like to permit the petitioners, as a last chance, to make a specific representation in detail within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order and as and when such representation would be made along with supporting material, the authorities are directed to reconsider and re-
examined the case of the petitioners and shall pass an Page 5 of 8 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 07 20:33:53 IST 2022 C/LPA/116/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/03/2022 appropriate order in accordance with law. It is also expected that as has been agitated that in similar circumstances, the case having been considered, the Court is expecting that if the present petitioners are identically situated, then the authorities may consider the case of the petitioners in its true spirit.
(ii) Since the authorities are expected to deal with the representation of the petitioners, the same be considered without being influenced by the present judgment and order and considering the length of time, which has taken placed in agitating the issue, it is expected that upon receipt of the representation, as a last chance, the authorities shall take appropriate decision as earlier as possible preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of application alongwith material of the petitions.
(iii) While parting with the present judgment and order, the last submissions which has been emphasized about the validity of the circular in question which is in connection with prayer No.6(A) of Special Civil Application No.11400 of 2016, the Court is leaving this issue open for two reasons, one that the Court has directed the respondent authorities to reconsider the case, and secondly, the said challenge is not supported by proper pleadings and the same is at a belated stage and as such in view of this peculiar set of circumstances, since it has not been emphasized emphatically, this issue is left it open without much expressing upon its validity."
4. All that has been provided in the common judgment and order is that the appellant - Gujarat Maritime Board is directed to consider the case of each of the original petitioners. In fact, we find in paragraph no.11.4 of the common judgment and order that such a suggestion was made and mooted by one of the learned counsel of the Board. We do not think it proper to interfere with in these intra-court appeals mainly on the ground that all that has been said by the learned Single Judge is to Page 6 of 8 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 07 20:33:53 IST 2022 C/LPA/116/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/03/2022 consider the case of the original petitioners. Before parting, we may also refer to the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ashish Awasthi in Civil Appeal No.6903 of 2021 dated 18.11.2021 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph no.5 as under:
"5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal succeeds, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh bench at Jabalpur in WA No.1559 of 2018 is hereby quashed and set aside by observing that the respondent shall not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of the subsequent circular/policy dated 31.08.2016.
It is reported that the amount of Rs.2 lakhs which was paid to the respondent as compensatory amount pursuant to the policy / scheme of 2014 has been given back by the respondent. If that be so, the same may be paid to the respondent.
Civil Appeal No.6904 of 2021 For the reasons stated in the judgment and order in Civil Appeal No.6903 of 2021, the impugned judgment and order passed by the division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No.2003 of 2019 also deserves to be quashed and set aside as in the present case also, the Division Bench of the High Court has directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground applying the subsequent scheme/circular and though under the scheme/circular prevalent on the date of death of the deceased employee, who at the relevant time was serving on work charge establishment, also deserves to be quashed and set aside and consequently, the present appeal is also allowed.
The impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in WA No.2003 of 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside.
Page 7 of 8 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 07 20:33:53 IST 2022C/LPA/116/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/03/2022 However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of."
5. Thus, the Gujarat Maritime Board may consider the direction issued by the learned Single Judge strictly on its merits keeping in mind the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ashish Awasthi (supra) and take appropriate decision in accordance with law and/or as per the applicable law. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge in paragraph no.24 as observed hereinabove shall have to be considered by the Gujarat Maritime Board in its true letter and spirit. It would be open for the respective original petitioners to take all available contentions before the Board.
6. In view of the above, all these appeals are disposed of accordingly. All the connected civil applications stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(R.M.CHHAYA,J) (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL Page 8 of 8 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 07 20:33:53 IST 2022