Service-related claims can be enforced even after delays, limited to three years before filing due to continuing wrongs affecting entitlements.

ORDER :

L.S. PIRZADA, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Gnanesh G. Bhatt appearing for Mr.Gaurang H. Bhatt for the appellant, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Shruti Dhruve for the respondent No.1 – State and learned advocate Mr.Himanish J. Japee for respondent Nos.2 to 6.

2. At the outset, learned advocates for the respective parties submitted that the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant – Panchayat against the impugned Judgment and Order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil application Nos.1489 of 2025, 1826 of 2025 and 1870 of 2025.

3. Factual matrix of the case are that the respondent Nos.2 to 6 - original petitioners had been appointed on compassionate basis as Class-III employee on fix pay of Rs.2500/- per month. Thereafter, he was appointed on regular pay-scale. It is the case of the original petitioners that they have not been given appointment on regular basis and have been wrongly appointed on fixed pay on fixed term basis.

3.1. The respondents – original petitioners have thereafter, preferred writ petitions being Special Civil application No.1489 of 2025 and allied matters and the learned Single Judge vide order dated 23.06.2025, allowed the said writ petitions by observing that the issue raised in the said petitions is covered by the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.10738 of 2020 and allied matters dated 14.03.2024 wherein, the Court relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court, had allowed the writ petitions directing the respondents to issue modified appointment orders to the petitioners, whereby the period from date of appointment of the petitioners would be treated as a regular pay-scale. The Court had further directed the respondents to pay to the petitioners all consequential benefits, including the benefits of arrears etc., which the petitioners would be entitled to upon such placement would be given to the petitioners for a period of 3 years prior to the date of filing of the writ petitions. The respondents were directed to complete the exercise within a period of 4 months from the date of the order.

3.2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal, challenging the order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil application No.1489 of 2025 and allied matters.

4. Considering the above, we also Admit this Appeal. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Shruti Dhruve and learned advocate Mr.Himanish J. Japee waive service of notice of admission for and on behalf of the respective respondents.

5. The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice A.S.Supehia and Hon’ble Mrs.Justice Mauna M. Bhatt (As Her Ladyship was then) has followed the order dated 11.07.2024 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.659 of 2024 wherein, similar issue has been dealt with. The order dated 11.07.2024 reads as under :

“14. The employees before us have contended that they are entitled to arrears from their initial date of appointment and not from 01.01.2020, whereas the State has prayed for restricting it for three years.

15. In our considered opinion, the date 01.01.2020 cannot be made applicable in all the cases uniformly in wake of the fact that the date of appointment of each of the employees and date of filing of the writ petitions is also different.

16. We have heard on this issue. Before we may pass final orders, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Dass (supra). While dealing with the issue of delay and latches caused in filing the writ petitions challenging termination orders, the Apex Court has held thus:

“10. In the case