Back
2025 Supreme(GUJ) 459
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 693 of 2019 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5418 of 2005 ==========================================================
GODAVARYBEN DAMODARBHAI KARIA SINC.DECD.THRO.HER HEIRS AND LR GIRISHBHAI DAMODARBHAI KARIA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SAMIR B GOHIL(5718) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR AAKASH CHHAYA, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MS KHYATI P HATHI(346) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3 ==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK Date : 12/03/2025
Appointments not made according to statutory procedures cannot be deemed regular, affecting entitlement to benefits such as family pensions.
Headnote:(A) Gujarat Panchayats Act - Section 203 - Family pension - The petition for family pension was dismissed as the appointment of the deceased was not made in accordance with the law, lacking a resolution from the Gram Panchayat - The Supreme Court's ruling in Harijan Paniben Dudabhai vs. State of Gujarat emphasized that appointments must follow statutory procedures to be deemed regular. (Paras 2, 5, 6, 9)
(B) Appointment Authority - The Sarpanch's authority to appoint was questioned, as the appointment was not supported by a Gram Panchayat resolution, rendering it illegal. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, mother of the deceased, sought family pension after her son, an Octroi Clerk, died in 1989. The request was denied due to the illegality of his appointment. Pending the petition, the mother passed away, and the brother was substituted as the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appointment was not made according to the law, thus the petition for family pension was rightly dismissed.
Issues: The main issues were whether the appointment was legal and if the petitioner was entitled to family pension.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without a proper resolution from the Gram Panchayat, the appointment was not valid, reaffirming the necessity of adherence to statutory procedures for appointments.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER :
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J.)
1. This appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been filed by the appellant who was the original petitioner challenging the judgement and order dated 01.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 5418 of 2005.
2. Petitioner Godavaryben Damodarbhai Karia is the mother of the deceased Arvindkumar Karia who died in 1989 during his service as Octroi Clerk in Mendarda Gram Panchayat. He was appointed as an Octroi Guard on 29.04.1978. A request for family pension made by the petitioner mother was rejected on the ground that the appointment of her son was not legal as proper procedure was not followed before appointing him on the said post.
2.1 Pending the petition, the mother expired and the deceased’s brother Girish Damodar Karia was brought on record. The learned Single Judge did not entertain the petition for family pension on the ground that the appointment of Arvindkumar Karia was made by the Sarpanch who was not authorized to appoint him as the order of appointment was not supported by the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat.
3. Mr. Samir Gohil, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in light of the decision in case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in AIR 2016 SC 3066, the learned Single Judge committed an error in dismissing the petition.
4. Ms. Khyati Hathi, learned advocate appearing for respondent no. 2 – Junagadh District Panchayat also would rely on the decision in the case of Harijan Paniben (supra).
5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties, though Mr. Gohil would submit that by a subsequent communication, the State Government had recommended regularization of the services of the appellant, that in our opinion would not make the appointment regular. It is an undisputed fact that the appointment of the appellant was not by resolution of the panchayat but by a letter of the Sarpanch. It is in this context that we need to reproduce paragraphs no. 8-9 of the decision of the learned Single Judge. The same read as under:
“8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harijan Paniben Dudhabhai (Supra) has considered the provisions of Section 203 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act while dealing with an issue relating to pension of employees The issue of grant of pension to such employees, who are not appointed as per the rules was before the Supreme Court. After detailed analysis of the service rules and Section 203 of the Act , the Superme court has held that the rules regulating “Superior Panchayat Service' and “Inferior Panchayat Service (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1967 came on the statute book in the year 1967. Going by the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Appointing Authorities) Rules, 1957, Gram Panchayat is the appropriate authority in respect of posts included in the local cadre. Thus, Supreme Court did not find any infraction in the appointment of the concerned employee of the Gram Panchayat, who was appointed pursuant to the resolution passed by the Panchayat. Nothing was pointed out before the Supreme court that how Gram Panchayat was not competent to make such appointment or that at the relevant time in question the power to make appointments was vested in an authority other than Gram Panchayat or that there was any separate modality or procedure prescribed for effecting such an appointment.
9. Thus, in the case before the Supreme Court, the employees were appointed pursuant to the Resolution passed by the concerned Panchayats, hence, such employees who were appointed pursuant to any resolution passed by the Panchayats were held to be entitled for family pension / pension. In present case, the appointment order dated 29.04.1978 would clearly establish that the brother of the petitioner i.e. Arvindkumar Damodar Karia was solely appointed by the Sarpanch. Mr.Jasani, learned advocate for the petitioner was unable to dislodge the said contention. He was unable to point out that whether Sa
