C/LPA/1703/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1703 of 2024 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/6490/2024 ========================================================== VIKRAMSINH KANUBHA VAGHELA Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR GM AMIN(124) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS KARUNA V RAHEVAR(3818) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MS SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2,4 MR VISHRUT R JANI FOR RC JANI & ASSOCIATE(6436) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Date : 19/08/2025 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA) 1. Leave to amend the respondent No.1 and add the respondent No.4-Director, Narmada Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Gandhinagar in the array of the parties. 2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today as the issue involved in the present appeal is short. 3. ADMIT. Learned AGP Ms.Dhruve and learned advocate Mr.Jani waive service of notice of admission for and on behalf of the respective respondents. Page 1 of 4 C/LPA/1703/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2025 4. Learned Single Judge has rejected the captioned writ petition vide order dated 10.10.2024, filed by the appellant-original petitioner claiming pension, only on the ground of delay. The following prayers were made in the captioned writ petition, which are as under: “15.B)This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling upon the respondents to fix pension to the petitioner and be pleased to grant arrears of pension to the petitioner with running interest at the rate of 18%. C) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction calling upon respondent no. 3 Corporation to pay pensionary benefits like gratuity, C.P.F. fund, PF, Insurance, medical allowance etc. with running interest at the rate of 18%.” 5. Thus, the appellant-original petitioner had claimed the pensionary benefits in the captioned writ petition, whereas the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition on the ground of delay, by recording thus: “8. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record. On perusal of record, I find that though the petitioner retired in the year 2012 and it is the claim of the petitioner that though he has not been paid any retiral benefits, the petitioner has chosen to sit idle till 2024 till this petition is preferred. Further, there is no justification coming forward from the petitioner for delay of twelve years apart from the fact that other similarly situated persons are paid the retiral benefits. Considering the fact that in respect of other similarly situated persons C/LPA/1703/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2025 as claimed by the petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court has held that they are entitled to pension but even that judgment is also of the year 2017 and the petitioner did not do anything till 2024 which would indicate that the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly and there is no justifiable reason coming forward from the petitioner for delay of around seven years. Further, the petitioner’s service before the State Government is of eight years and at the time of the petitioner’s transfer from State to Corporation. Upon a specific query by the Court that whether at any point of time, the petitioner challenged his transfer from State Government, Irrigation Department to the concerned Corporation, learned advocate Mr. Amin was fair in conceding that the petitioner did not challenge the aforesaid action. Hence, I don’t see any reason to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the petition is required to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.” 6. It is not disputed and no more res integra that the claim of pension is a recurring cause of action and the writ petition claiming the pension cannot be rejected only on the ground of delay. 7. At this stage, learned advocate Mr.Jani has submitted that in fact, the appellant had obtained the amount of Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) in the year 2012 and hence, he is not entitled to pension after so many years. The said statement is controverted by learned advocate Mr.Amin appearing for the appellant and has submitted that the appellant has not received any amount. He has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of M.L.Patil (Dead) through legal representatives Vs. State of Goa and Anr., (2023) 1 S.C.C. 660. Page 3 of 4 C/LPA/1703/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2025 8. Be that as it may. We are not entering into the aforesaid aspects. 9. Thus, the impugned order dated 10.10.2024 passed in the captioned writ petition is hereby quashed and set aside as the same runs contrary to the settled legal precedent. The matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration. All the rights and contentions of the respective parties are left open. 10. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- (A. S. SUPEHIA, J) Sd/- (R. T. VACHHANI, J) NVMEWADA/36 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges. Digitally signed by: NEHABEN VINODBHAI MEWADA(HC01571), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 22/08/2025 11:02:30