Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 2115
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.
Akabari Kaushik Hansrajbhai & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Anr. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 10273 Of 2016 With R/Special Civil Application No. 10274 Of 2016 With R/Special Civil Application No. 10786 Of 2016
Decided On : 22-07-2025
For the Petitioners: Mr. Dwijen Joshi
For the Respondents: Mr. Path Patel, AGP, Mr. Jeej Jotangia, AGP, Mr. Henil Shah, AGP, Government Pleader
Retrospective seniority cannot be granted to an employee from a date when they were not borne on the cadre. Seniority must be determined from the date of initial entry into service. Furthermore, belated claims challenging established seniority are barred under the doctrine of laches.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Service Jurisprudence - Seniority - Employees appointed to a post pursuant to judicial directions cannot claim retrospective seniority from a date prior to their actual entry into the cadre. Seniority in a grade must be reckoned from the date of initial substantive appointment. (Paras 7.2.2, 7.3)
(B) Delay and Laches - Claim to seniority - Disputed seniority positions settled after years of service cannot be opened through belated litigation. When claims for seniority are raised after an excessive delay, the petition is unsustainable as it seeks to disturb the vested rights of others accrued during the intervening period. (Para 7.3)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought the grant of seniority from the date other candidates were appointed to the designated post. The petitioners were appointed in the year 2013 pursuant to a directive issued by the court in a previous round of litigation. They argued that their seniority should relate back to the date of appointment of other candidates, claiming notional seniority and corresponding pay-scale benefits. The state opposed the claim, submitting that seniority cannot be granted retrospectively from a date when the petitioners were not yet part of the service cadre and noting the significant delay between their appointment and the filing of the present petitions.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the claim for retrospective seniority was fundamentally flawed as the petitioners were not borne on the cadre at the time they sought to be associated with. The court held that seniority is a right that accrues only upon entering the grade. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the challenge to established seniority was made after several years, amounting to delay and laches, which cannot be entertained as it adversely impacts the rights of other legally appointed individuals.
Issues: Whether an employee can claim seniority from a date prior to their actual appointment, and whether a belated petition challenging long-standing seniority for public service positions is maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Retrospective seniority cannot be granted to an employee from a date when the employee was not borne on the cadre. Seniority must be counted from the date of initial entry into the grade, and any departure must be traceable to specific statutory rules. Belated challenges to settled seniority positions are rejected to prevent the disturbance of vested legal rights.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background and factual context of the petitioners' claims for seniority. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.
Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respective respondents in the respective petitions.
1. Since the issues involved in the present petitions are almost identical in nature, hence, at the request of learned advocates for the respective parties, the matters are heard together and decided together and Special Civil Application No. 10273 of 2016 is considered as lead matter and accordingly, facts are taken from the lead matter for convenience of the Court.
2. The present lead petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 10273 of 2016 is filed by the petitioners for seeking the following reliefs:
“(A) This Honourable Court be pleased to admit and allow this petition.
(B) This Honourable Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction including the writ in the nature of mandamus and present petitioners be given seniority from dated 5.9.2011 as per the appointment of other candidates.
(C) Pending, admission hearing and/or final disposal of this Special Civil Application this Honourable be pleased to give present petitioners the benefit of regular pay-scale and all other benefits arising out of their appointment as per the appointment of other candidates i.e. dated 5.9.2011.
(D) This Honourable Court be pleased to grant any other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. Brief facts as stated in the memo of the lead petitions are as under:
3.1 It is the case of the petitioners in this petition that the present petitioners are blind and seeking protection under Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. It is further the case of the petitioners in this petition that the present petitioners as well as other similarly situated persons have preferred different petitions before this Court, whereby on 01.12.2012, the Court has passed common judgment and the present petitioners have preferred Special Civil Application No.6858 of 2010 and that the aforesaid common judgment passed by the Court was implemented. It is further the case of the petitioners in this petition that pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the present petitioners were appointed by the respondent by Office Order dated 10.07.2013 and petitioner No.2- Makwana Dipak Prahladbhai and petitioner No.1-Akabari Kaushik Hansrajbhai have resumed the charge on 11.07.2013. Therefore, the petitioners are already appointed pursuant to the order passed by this Court, whereby the petitions of the petitioners were allowed and, therefore, the right, which has been created in favour of the present petitioners pursuant to the judgment of the Court and the aspect of seniority of the petitioners is also required to be considered from the date of appointment of other candidates. It is further the case of the petitioners in this petition that as per the advertisement dated 28.5.2010, the petitioners are required to be awarded and notional seniority is required to be given to the present petitioners and they are also entitled for salary as the prevailing pay-scale of the Government as the Government has not cared to implement the provisions of the Disabilities Act in proper manner and due to that, the present petitioners are unnecessarily penalized.
3.2 It is further the case of the petitioners in this petition that earlier petitions preferred by the petitioners were with regard to appointment of primary teacher and the Hon’ble High Court has given the mandate in favour of the present petitioner by issuing appropriate direction in judgment and order dated 01.11.2012. The petitioners' right to get an appointment is created and, therefore, present petitioners have preferred the earlier petition as the present petitioners are now already appointed and are workin
