SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 12675

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Nikhil S. Kariel, J
Maru Lilabhai Pithabhai – Appellant
Versus
District Treasury Officer, Junagadh – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14280 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Himanish J. Japee
For the Respondents: Aditya Pathak

Employees appointed on a fixed-pay basis under compassionate appointment schemes are entitled to be treated as regular employees from their initial date of appointment; however, payment of arrears for consequential benefits is restricted to the three-year period preceding the date of filing the writ petition.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Regular pay-scale from initial date of appointment - Delay and Laches - Consequential benefits - Arrears restricted to three years preceding filing of petition - Held, if service-related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even after delay, but arrears for consequential benefits are restricted to three years before the date of filing the writ petition - Petitioners, appointed on fixed-term basis under disputed government resolutions, held entitled to regular pay-scale from initial date of appointment as per established precedents. (Paras 6, 7, 9, 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, appointed on a fixed-pay basis under a compassionate appointment policy, approached the Court claiming that their appointment should have been on a regular pay-scale from their initial date of appointment. They relied upon previous judgments of the Court wherein similarly situated employees were granted such relief, subject to limitations on arrears as defined by a Division Bench.

Findings of Court:
The Court, following the principle of parity and the precedent established by coordinate benches, directed the respondents to issue modified appointment orders treating the petitioners as regular employees from their initial date of appointment, while restricting the payment of arrears to the three-year period preceding the date of filing the petition.

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to be treated as regular employees from their date of initial appointment despite having been appointed on a fixed-pay basis, and to what extent arrears should be granted in light of the delay in approaching the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Following the Division Bench's interpretation, the Court held that while the petitioners were entitled to regular status and pay fixation from their initial appointment date, the claim for arrears for the period beyond three years before the filing of the writ petition is barred by delay and laches, consistent with the principles set out in apex court case law regarding continuing wrongs.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioners rightfully claim regular pay-scale following previous judicial precedents. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. the state's delay and applicability arguments were previously rejected by higher courts. (Para 9 , 10)
3. granting regular status effective from appointment, limiting arrears to three years. (Para 11 , 12)

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Himanish J. Japee for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Aditya Pathak for the respondent State.

2. Issue Rule. Learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

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 this 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 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 Division Bench, may be accorded to the present petitioners.

5. Learned AGP 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 appointment 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 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 Division Bench has further clarified that the 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 particularly since there is no dispute as regards the fact that the petitioners herein are identically situated to the petitioners of the group of petitions referred to hereinabove, the benefits as the petitioners of the above writ petitions had been conferred with, are required to be granted to the petitioners herein.

9. Having regard to the such a position, at the outset, this Court seeks to refer to the observations of this Court vide decisi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top