Continuity of service is inherent in reinstatement, entitling the petitioner to benefits from the initial date of joining despite the illegal termination.

JUDGMENT :

Nirzar S. Desai, J.

1. As the issue pertains to grant of benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and as the petitioner has claimed such benefits from his initial date of joining, which according to Mr.P.C.Chaudhari, learned advocate for the petitioner, is a covered issue. With the consent of the parties, the matter was taken up finally. Hence, Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Aditya Davda, learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent – State.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for conferring the benefits or a direction to the respondents to grant the benefit of the resolution dated 17.10.1988 from initial date of joining and on completion of 5 years, 10 years and 15 years service respectively. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the respondents to fix the salary of the petitioner by considering the intervening period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement as notional and has further prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay arrears from the actual date of reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

3. The facts of the petition as stated by Mr.P.C.Chaudhari, learned advocate for the petitioner are stated as under :-

3.1. That the petitioner was appointed under the respondents in November-1987 as a Watchman.

Thereafter, his services were illegally terminated in the year 2009. He challenged the same by way of Reference (LCD) No.4 of 2015 before the Labour Court at Dahod. The Labour Court, Dahod passed an award dated 09th February, 2021 and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on his original post with continuity of service, but without back-wages. The aforesaid award was never challenged. Ultimately, the petitioner was reinstated with effect from 21st October, 2022 and at present, the petitioner is in service.

3.2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 on completion of 5 years, 10 years and 15 years of service as per the provision of the aforesaid resolution as the petitioner has almost completed 35 years services under the respondents.

4. Mr.P.C.Chaudhari, learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Nanjibhai Madhabhai Vs. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.2192 of 2017 decided on 24.07.2018 and by relying upon the said decision, learned advocate Mr.P.C.Chaudhari submitted that the facts of the present petition are almost identical and while allowing the petition and while directing the respondents to confer and grant the benefits to the petitioner of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, suitable directions were issued by the co-ordinate bench to the State Government to the extent of reckoning the services of the petitioner from initial date of his joining and depending upon the completion of requisite number of services, to confer the corresponding benefits under the said resolution. It was also pointed out by learned advocate Mr.P.C.Chaudhari that the Court directed the respondent that the service of the petitioner be treated as continuous with effect from initial date of joining till the date of reinstatement and notional benefits would be calculated and actual benefits be paid from the date of reinstatement onwards. The arrears which may arise and become payable by virtue of the order passed by the Court from onwards the date of reinstatement was directed to be paid within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of the order passed by the Court. Learned Advocate Mr.P.C.Chaudhari submitted that in view of the fact that the facts of the present petitioner are almost identical, this Court may pass similar order looking to the facts of the case as was passed in the Special Civil Application No.2192 of 2017 on 24.07.2018.

5. Though Mr.Aditya Davda, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent - State vehemently opposed the petition from the facts stated in the petition sup