IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13217 of 2017 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

MUKESHCHANDRA HARSHADRAI VYAS (DECEASED) & ORS.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

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

Appearance:

DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/

REPRESTENTATIVES for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR GUNVANT R THAKAR(3801) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1,1.2 MS BHARGAVI G THAKAR(5015) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2 MS. KRISHNA DESAI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA Date : 12/12/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. These facts are not in dispute.

2. On 27.11.1972, the deceased petitioner was appointed to the Work Charge Establishment in Public Health Circle, Ahmedabad as a Supervisor/Assistant Executive Engineer (Mech.) w.e.f. 01.12.1972.

3. It may be pertinent to state here that three other employees, namely, A. M. Kavi, were also promoted on 27.11.1972. One, Mr. Pathak was appointed as Additional Assistant Executive Engineer on 01.12.1972 and, Mr. Timbaliya was also appointed as an Additional Assistant Executive Engineer on 04.12.1972.

4. In other words, the deceased petitioner along with Mr.

Pathak and Mr. Timbaliya were appointed as Additional Assistant Engineers / Supervisor (Mech.) in the month of December 1972 while Mr. A. M. Kavi was promoted to the said post on 27.11.1972. To put it differently, all the three above-mentioned persons along with the deceased petitioner came onto the cadre of Additional Assistant Engineers in the month of December, 1972.

5. It is also not in dispute that the deceased petitioner as well as other two employees i.e. Mr. Pathak and Mr. Timbaliya, were taken on the temporary establishment in the month of November, 1972.

6. On 01.04.1981, the service of the petitioner was transferred to the Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board, which had been constituted separately, by way of a transfer. Thus, on 01.04.1981, the petitioner who had been initially appointed in the Public Health Circle, Ahmedabad became the employee of GWSSB. The deceased petitioner, ultimately, retired on 31.07.2008 while working with the GWSSB.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforementioned persons, i.e., Mr. A M Kavi, Mr. Pathak and Mr. Timbaliya, were granted deemed promotion as Deputy Executive Engineers on 04.08.1984, but, though the petitioner was similarly situated in all respects, he was not given this benefit of deemed promotion.

8. The deemed date of promotion was granted to the aforementioned persons on the premise that the service that they had rendered service in the work charge establishment should be taken into account while computing their tenure.

9. The deceased petitioner has therefore filed this petition, seeking for a direction that he also be conferred a deemed promotion with them from 04.08.1984, as had been done in the case of the aforementioned three employees, Mr.

Kavi, Mr. Pathak and Mr. Timbaliya.

10. Shri Munshaw, learned Counsel, and the learned AGP, on the other hand, contended that this petition cannot be entertained because the deceased petitioner retired in the year 2008 and chose to approach this Court only in the year 2017 i.e., nearly after a period of nine years. He contends that the deceased petitioner never raised this plea that he was entitled for a deemed promotion and therefore, he should not be permitted to raise this plea nearly a decade after his retirement.

11. It is also strenuously contended that the benefit that was given to the aforementioned three people was, by itself, improper in view of the fact that the circular, on the basis of which they had been given a deemed date