IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1274 of 2026 ==========================================================

RAMESHBHAI DHANABHAI ZILARIYA & ORS.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance :

ULLASH N GOHIL for the Petitioners.

MR ADITYA DAVDA, AGP for the Respondents.

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI Date : 05/02/2026 ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Ullash Gohil on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of the respondent – State.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought for grant of benefit under circular dated 16.07.2019. Learned advocate Mr. Gohil for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as far as back on 1995 – 1998 and working for four hours. Learned advocate would submit that the petitioner has continued to work as such and the petitioner is still in service and whereas under such circumstances, the petitioner would be entitled for grant of benefit under circular dated 16.07.2019.

3. Insofar as the grant of benefit under circular dated 16.07.2019, learned advocate Mr. Gohil would submit that the issue of entitlement of the person working for four hours or more as per the circular dated 16.07.2019 is no more in dispute more particularly a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6852/2020 vide decision dated 19.07.2022 has categorized the beneficiaries of circular dated 16.07.2019 in eight categories and whereas, one of the categories being as regards the part timer who is working for four hours or more.

3.1 Learned advocate would submit that the said decision having been challenged by the State before the Hon’ble Division Bench, more particularly, on the aspect of a part timer working for four hours and whereas, Hon’ble Division Bench also confirmed the decision of the learned Coordinate Bench vide decision dated

11.08.2023 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1019/2023.

4. As against the submission made by learned advocate Mr. Gohil, learned AGP would submit that since this Court is proposing to dispose of this matter at this stage itself, the respondents may be allowed to verify the fact that there is no modification in the service conditions of the petitioner more particularly the period of service is not reduced below four hours per day. Learned AGP as such could not dispute the proposition as laid down by the learned Coordinate Bench as well as the Hon’ble Division Bench as regards entitlement of a person working for four hours for minimum of pay scale as per circular dated 16.07.2019.

5. Having regard to the above discussion, it clearly appears that except for the verification of the number of hours being worked by the petitioner, the respondent authorities would have to grant the benefit of circular dated 16.07.2019 and whereas in the considered opinion of this Court, the following directions would meet with the ends of justice:-

(a) The respondent No.3 to verify the number of hours being put in by the petitioner and whereas, if the requirement as found in the order of appointment of the petitioner working for six hours or in the interregnum the same has been modified even up to four hours, then also, appropriate proposal for disbursement of appropriate amount as per the entitlement of the petitioner under circular dated 16.07.2019 i.e. minimum pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2019 shall be submitted to respondent nos.1 and 2.

(b) The respondent nos.1 and 2 shall verify the proposal and whereas if the petitioner is stated to be working for four hours or more, then the proposal shall be appropriately acceded to.

(c) The respondent no.3 shall forward the proposal within a period of four weeks and whereas, upon receipt of the proposal, respondent no.2 shall appropriately verify the same and in case the petitioner is working for four hours or more, the amount for which the petitioner would be enti