Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 4569

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Maulik J. Shelat, J
Mahesh Tulsidas Agarwat – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4858 of 2022|R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5031 of 2022|R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7310 of 2022|R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7312 of 2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mukesh T Mishra, Krishnan Ghavariya
For the Respondents: Dhruti Pandya, Forum Sukhadwala, Nidhi Vyas

Reinstatement with continuity of service requires the entire service tenure, including the period prior to an illegal termination, to be counted for calculating departmental benefits, precluding employers from relying on the termination gap to deny statutory service-based entitlements.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Service law - Benefits under government resolution - Reinstatement with continuity of service - Whether benefits should be calculated from initial date of appointment or date of award - Held, once reinstatement with continuity of service is decreed, the service record is treated as unbroken; therefore, benefits must be calculated from the initial date of appointment - An employer cannot benefit from its own illegal termination to deny service-based entitlements. (Paras 10.1, 10.2, 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were engaged as daily wage workers, subsequently terminated, and later reinstated following a labour court award that specifically granted them “continuity of service.” When the authorities provided the benefits of a government resolution, they calculated these benefits starting from the date of the reinstatement award rather than the initial date of appointment, arguing that the employees had not met the required work-day criteria within a year.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the authorities erred by ignoring the continuity of service granted by the legal award. The court held that the employer cannot rely on the consequences of an illegal termination to deny benefits that would have accrued had the service not been disrupted. The authorities were directed to pay the difference in salary and retiral benefits, calculated from the initial appointment, along with 6% interest on arrears.

Issues: Whether the length of service for the purpose of granting benefits under a government resolution commences from the initial date of appointment or the date of the reinstatement award when the court has ordered continuity of service.

Ratio Decidendi: Reinstatement with continuity of service implies that the service remains legally uninterrupted. Consequently, the period of service must be counted from the initial date of entry; the employer is precluded from using the period of forced unemployment resulting from illegal termination to defeat the employee's claim for benefits.

Result: Petitions partly allowed; respondents directed to recalculate and pay arrears with interest.

Table of Content
1. procedural consolidation of similar writ petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. factual history regarding unlawful termination and reinstatement. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. arguments concerning entitlement to resolution benefits. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. eligibility for benefits upon reinstatement with continuity. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. requirement to include prior service in benefit calculations. (Para 13 , 14)
6. execution of arrears payment and benefit modification. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)

COMMON JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties, at length.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms.Dhruti Pandya, Ms.Forum Sukhadwala and Ms.Nidhi Vyas, learned AGPs waive service of rule on behalf of the State respondents in their respective petitions.

3. All these petitions raise a similar issue and upon request made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, they are heard together and decided by this common judgment.

4. For the sake of convenience, the facts and prayers of Special Civil Application No.4858 of 2022 are considered.

5. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit the petition.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to allow the petition by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction and/or order in the nature of mandamus by directing the respondents to modify the order dated 29-1-2022 and thereby releasing the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17-10-1988 from the 1-1-1996 instead of 29-1-2020 along with arrears & interest at the rate of 12% per annum.”

SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE :

6. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1991 as a Labourer and his service was terminated in the year 2004. The petitioner appears to have approached the Labour Court, Rajkot, being Reference (LCJ) No.21 of 2009 which came to be partly allowed by the Labour Court on 31.12.2014 directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service without back-wages. The said order of the Labour Court was confirmed by this Court vide its order dated 08/11/2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.15939 of 2015.

6.1 While reinstating the petitioner in service, the respondent had not granted the actual benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988. Therefore, the petitioner along with others appears to have approached this Court by way of a writ petition, being Special Civil Application No.7629 of 2020 and others, wherein this Court vide its order dated 07/10/2020, directed respondents to pass on the benefits of the aforesaid resolution to the petitioner.

6.2 The respondent authority vide its impugned order dated 29/01/2022, though granted the benefit of the aforesaid resolution, but it has considered the date of award for calculating the benefit of the aforesaid Government Resolution, instead of his initial date of appointment in service. Hence, the present petition.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER :

7. Mr.Mishra and Mr.Ghavariya, learned advocates for the respective petitioners would submit that the order is ex facie erroneous, perverse and contrary to the Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 and requires to be quashed and set aside.

7.1 It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1991 and as per the award of the Labour Court confirmed by this Court, he was required to be reinstated with continuity of service and considering the said fact, as per the Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988, upon completion of five years from the initial appointment of the petitioner, the petitioner is required to be granted the benefit of fixed pay and thereafter, upon completion of a further five years, the petitioner is required to be granted the regular pay scale. It is further submitted that the respondent has not granted benefits as per said resolution, thereby violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

7.2 In support of their arguments, learned advocates for the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 4569

Reinstatement with continuity of service requires the entire service tenure, including the period prior to an illegal termination, to be counted for calculating departmental benefits, precluding employers from relying on the termination gap to deny statutory service-based entitlements.

Cases Referred (1)