Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 4810

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Nirzar S. Desai, J
Laljibhai Panchabhai Zala – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17251 of 2023 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17329 of 2023 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17330 of 2023 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17331 of 2023 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17332 of 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mukesh T. Mishra
For the Respondents: Henil Shah

When a court grants continuity of service for the interregnum period following an illegal termination, that period qualifies as service for calculating benefits under government welfare resolutions, requiring authorities to account for that continuous service rather than restricting calculations solely to the date of actual reinstatement.

Headnote:(A) Government Resolution dated 17-10-1988 - Calculation of service benefits - Reinstatement with continuity - Claim for inclusion of service period prior to termination. (Para 10)

(B) Appellate Review - Coordination Bench orders - Binding nature of previous findings on continuity of service - Whether interregnum period from termination to reinstatement constitutes qualifying service. (Para 15, 22)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, who were initially daily wagers, had their services terminated in 1999. Following an award by the Labour Court, they were reinstated without back wages. A coordinate Bench of this Court later modified the award to grant continuity of service specifically for the interregnum period between termination and reinstatement. The state authorities subsequently granted benefits under a 1988 Government Resolution by calculating service only from the date of reinstatement in 2009. The petitioners challenged this, seeking to count service from their initial appointments.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the respondents erred in strictly capping the continuous service from the reinstatement date (2009). The Court directed that since the interregnum period was legally deemed as continuous service, the benefits under the 1988 Resolution should accrue from the date of the illegal termination (1999). It further directed authorities to re-verify if the period prior to 1999 met the 240-day criteria for further benefit calculation.

Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 from their initial date of appointment, or from the date of illegal termination, or only from the date of reinstatement.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an order of reinstatement grants continuity of service for the interregnum period, that period must be recognized for the purpose of computing service benefits under a Government Resolution, notwithstanding the absence of specific evidence for periods prior to the initial termination.

Result: Petitions allowed; respondents directed to re-calculate benefits from the date of termination and verify earlier service periods.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and consolidation of petitions regarding service benefits. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. parties' contentions regarding the calculation of continuous service and resolution applicability. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. court's interpretation of labor awards and previous judgments on continuity of service. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. final directions for recalculating service benefits starting from the date of illegal termination. (Para 23 , 24)

COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

1. According to learned advocate Mr. Mukesh T. Mishra, all these petitions having identical facts and prayers and, therefore, all these five petitions were taken up together and now being decided together. Hence, with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matters are taken up for final disposal today itself. Hence, Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents in each of these petitions.

2. As it is an admitted position, according to Mr. Mishra that all these petitions are identical, Special Civil Application No.17251 of 2023 was considered to be lead matter and the facts and prayers are considered from the said petition.

3. In Special Civil Application No.17251 of 2023, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-

“(A) That Your Lordships be pleased issue an order, direction and/or writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, modifying the order dated 1-11- 2022 passed by the Executive Engineer, Rajkot Irrigation Division Annx. “F” and direct the respondents to consider the service of the of petitioner from his initial date appointment which is 1993 for extending the benefit of G.R. dated 17-10- 1988 as per Fifth, Sixth & Seventh Pay Commission Recommendation, with arrears from the date of Award which is 10-7-2008 Annx. “A” with 6% interest;

(B) That Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondents to open the G.P.F.

(C) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the benefit of Sixth & Seventh Pay Commission from 1.1.2006 and 1.1.2016;”

4. According to the case of the petitioners put forward by Mr. Mishra, out of the five petitioners, four petitioners were appointed as Daily Wagers in the year 1993 and the fifth petitioner, namely, Khimjibhai Veerabhai Solanki was appointed as Daily Wager in the year 1990. After the appointment, they were performing their duties as Daily Wagers and services of all the petitioners were terminated vide termination order dated 14.2.1999.

5. Upon termination, the petitioners preferred Reference (LCJ) No.75 to 79 of 2002 and the Labour Court, Jamnagar vide award dated 10.7.2008 directed reinstatement of the petitioners within 30 days, but without back wages.

6. Being aggrieved with non-grant of back wages, the petitioners challenged the award of the Labour Court to the said extent by way of Special Civil Application No.3300 of 2011 and the coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 14.3.2011 observed in paragraphs 10 and 11 as under :-

“10. I have considered submissions made by learned advocates for both parties. I have also perused award passed by labour Court wherein labour Court has directed respondent establishment to reinstate petitioners in service on their original post within thirty days from date of publication of award without back wages for interim period and has not denied relief of continuity of service specifically while granting relief of reinstatement on original post held by respective workmen. I have also considered fact that award made by labour Court in aforesaid references dated 10th July, 2008 has not been challenged by present respondent State of Gujarat before Higher Forum.

11. Therefore, in light of this background, considering decisions which have been referred to and relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Devnani for p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document