Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Gujarat · body

2018 DAILYLAW 1287 (GUJ)

PRABHUJI RAMAJI THAKORE(DECEASED) v. STATE OF GUJARAT

SCA/7870/2018 · 2026-04-13

Maulik J Shelat

body2018

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

C/SCA/7870/2018 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7870 of 2018 ============================================= PRABHUJI RAMAJI THAKORE(DECEASED) & ANR. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ============================================= Appearance: DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS REENA KAMANI FOR MR PH PATHAK(665) for Petitioner(s) No. 1.1 MR SIDDHARTH RAMI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 ============================================= CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT Date : 13/04/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. 2. Heard Ms.Reena Kamani, learned advocate for Mr.P.H. Pathak, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned AGP appearing for the State respondents. 3. At the outset, Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned AGP, would draw the attention of this Court that so far as the claim for leave encashment is concerned, it has already been paid by the respondent to the petitioner. Mr. Rami, learned AGP, has drawn the attention of this Court to the payment of leave encashment benefits as stated in paras 5 and 6 of the reply submitted by the respondent. 4. Ms.Kamani, learned advocate for the petitioner, is unable to controvert the aforesaid facts. Nonetheless, she C/SCA/7870/2018 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026 would submit that the petitioner is entitled to receive pensionary benefits as, according to the petitioner, he was appointed in the year 1980, whereas according to the respondents, the petitioner was engaged in service in the year 1984 and a attendance-sheet of the petitioner in this regard is produced on record along with the reply. 5. Since there is a disputed question of fact as regards the initial date of appointment, it is desirable that the petitioner, if so advised, may approach the Labour Court concerned seeking an appropriate declaration and appropriate relief in regard to the receipt of pensionary benefits. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of, reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner as aforesaid. Notice is discharged. (MAULIK J. SHELAT, J) GAURAV J THAKER Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: GAURAVKUMAR JANARDANBHAI THAKER(HC00951), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 13/04/2026 17:48:47