IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12420 of 2025 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12723 of 2025 ==========================================================

RAKESHKUMAR KANTILAL PRAJAPATI & ORS.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

ARCHITA M PRAJAPATI(8241) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6 MS NIRALI SARDA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s)

No. 1 MR KAMLESH S KOTAI(6150) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 23/09/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Ms.Archita Prajapati appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Nirali Sarda appearing on behalf of the respondent – State.

2. Issue Rule. Learned Advocates for the respective respondents waive service of Rule.

3. With the consent of the parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing.

4. At the outset, learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that the issue raised in the petition is covered by a decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.10738 of 2020 and allied matters dated 14.03.2024 and whereas it is submitted that the said decision, with a modification, had been confirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that since the petitioners are similarly situated to the petitioners of the above writ petitions, the same benefit as modified by the Hon’ble Division Bench, may be accorded to the present petitioners.

5. Learned AGP and learned advocate for the District Panchayat would not dispute the proposition as having been submitted by learned advocate for the petitioners.

6. It would appear that the petitioners before this Court, had been appointed on compassionate basis in terms of Government Resolution dated 15.06.2004, which prescribed the appointments on fixed pay on Ad-hoc basis for a period of 5 years and upon the petitioners having satisfactorily completed the period prescribed, the petitioners were to be absorbed in either Class-III or the Class-IV posts, as the case may be. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners had been wrongly appointed on fixed pay on fixed term basis and whereas, it is in this context that the persons identically situated to the petitioners, had approached this Court by preferring the writ petitions referred to hereinabove. It would appear that this Court, vide judgment dated 14.03.2024 having relied 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. This Court had further directed the respondents to pay to the petitioners all consequential benefits, which the petitioners would be entitled to upon the change in the date of the appointment orders, including arrears of benefits w.e.f. 01.01.2020. The respondents were directed to complete the exercise within a period of 4 months from the date of the order.

7. It would appear that the State as well as some of the District Panchayats had preferred Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of this Court vide Letters Patent Appeal No.659 of 2024 and allied matters and whereas the Hon’ble Division Bench vide common oral order dated 11.07.2024 had inter alia modified the said decision to the extent that the arrears, which those petitioners would be entitled to, would be restricted to a period of three years prior to date of filing of the writ petitions. The Hon’ble Division Bench has further clarified that the Hon’ble Division Bench had not disturbed the decision with regard to conferment of the regular pay- scale from initial date of appointment etc. as ordered by this Court.

8. Considering such a situation, more parti