Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D.KARIA, L.S.PIRZADA
Gujarat Vidhyapith – Appellant
Versus
Raxaben Anilkumar Patel – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
L.S. PIRZADA, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Udayan P. Vyas, appearing for the appellant and learned advocate Ms.Mamta Vyas, appearing on advance copy for respondent No.1.
2. The present appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the present appellant-original respondent No.1, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.23385 of 2017. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the original petitioner-present respondent No.1 and has directed the appellant-original respondents to grant all consequential benefits to which the original petitioner is entitled, including payment of salary for the period from the date of termination, i.e. 30.11.2017, till the date of superannuation, i.e. 31.05.2018 and further directed the respondents to pay all retirement dues to the original petitioner.
3. The factual matrix of the present appeal is that the respondent-original petitioner applied for the post of Library Assistant pursuant to an advertisement dated 11.05.1983 issued by the appellant-original respondent No.1
Termination of services is invalid if the employee meets all requisite qualifications as per appointment conditions and relevant laws.
The main legal point established is the requirement of adherence to the principles of natural justice, including providing an opportunity of hearing, in termination proceedings, and the applicability....
Termination upheld as unsustainable due to lack of applicable UGC guidelines on age relaxation in employment.
Judgment affirms the necessity of due process in employment, emphasizing that failure to provide a hearing before termination violates natural justice. UGC regulations' retrospective application prot....
Removal from service – A person appointed after undergoing a regular selection process and possessing relevant qualifications, cannot be abruptly removed from service.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the government is not obligated to pay the salary of an individual appointed in a non-sanctioned post from the government grant.
The denial of UGC scale of pay from the date of regularization based on unjust conditions is discriminatory, violating equal treatment under Article 14.
The court reaffirmed that judicial decisions regarding employment rights must be respected, and that grounds for termination or denial of appointment must be substantiated with valid evidence, partic....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
