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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 9312

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
VINODRAI GORDHANDAS AGRAWALV/sCHIEF OFFICER - PORBANDAR NAGAR PALIKA
R/SCA/5477/2016



IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5477 of 2016 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✓

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

VINODRAI GORDHANDAS AGRAWAL Versus CHIEF OFFICER - PORBANDAR NAGAR PALIKA & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MS MAMTA R VYAS(994) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR MURALI N DEVNANI(1863) for the respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT Date : 10/03/2026

JUDGMENT

1. At the outset, Ms. Mamta R. Vyas, learned Advocate for the petitioner, under the instructions of her client, does not press the relief as prayed in paragraph No. 11(A) of this petition, whereby, the petitioner is not challenging the award dated 30.01.2016 passed by the Industrial Court, Jamnagar in New Reference (IT) No. 101 of 2012 (Old No.130 of 2001). Thus, prayer made in paragraph No. 11 (A) stand deleted.

2. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Murali N. Devnani, learned Advocate, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.1.

3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.

4. Heard Ms. Mamta R. Vyas, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Murali N. Devnani, learned Advocate for the respondent No.1.

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

“(AA) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the Respondents to regularized the services of petitioners since he has completed 240 days on the post of Sanitary Sub Inspector and give him all the benefits of the post and also direct the respondents to pay the arrears with interest and with continuity of service on the post of Sanitary Sub Inspector.

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this Writ petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the order dtd. 30/01/2016 passed by the Industrial Court, Jamnagar in Ref. (IT) No. 101/2012 qua the petitioner; and further be pleased to direct the respondent to continue the petitioner on the post of Sanitary Sub-Inspector and not to terminate the services of the petitioner;

(C) Be pleased to pass such other and further relief as may be deemed fit by Your Lordships in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

6. THE SHORT FACTS:

6.1. The petitioner was appointed as a sanitary inspector by the respondent on 21.04.1997 and he was superannuated on 31.07.2017. Till the time of his superannuation, the petitioner's service was not regularized by the respondent.

6.2. It appears that at the relevant point of time, in the year 2000, along with the petitioner, there were other workmen/drivers engaged by the respondent, who requested the respondent to regularize their service. The record indicates that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner, along with other workmen, had approached the Labour Court seeking regularization benefit.

The respondent agreed to grant such benefit while the reference was pending and attempted to reach an amicable resolution to the issue. Accordingly, vide its resolution dated 30.07.2009, it agreed to regularize the service of the petitioner, wherein also, it has been stated that until the date of regularization, the previous service of the petitioner will be calculated notionally for purpose of granting regularization benefits. Consequently, on 29.10.2009, the petitioner along with other workmen were granted the benefit of the 6th Pay Commission. Later on, vide its office order dated 12.07.2010, the respondent agreed to grant benefit of regularization to the petitioner w.e.f.

01.10.2009.

6.3. The petitioner was also given an additional charge of Fire Fighter Superintendent by

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top