C/SCA/9679/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9679 of 2025 ========================================================== JETHABHAI JIVABHAI MAKAWANA & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR PH PATHAK(665) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3 MS REENA M KAMANI(6007) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3 MS SHREE P PATHAK(13126) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3 MR MITUL GAUTAM, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 23/09/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned advocate Ms.Reena Kamani appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Mitul Gautam appearing on behalf of the respondent – State. 1.1. Leave to amend the name of the father of the husband of the petitioner no.3 is permitted. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr.Gautam waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent – State. 3. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:- C/SCA/9679/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 “(A) The Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not granting the benefits of GR dated 17.10.1988 to petitioner no.1 and 2 and husband of petitioner no.3 by counting the services of the employees as continuous from their initial date of appointment till their date of retirement with all consequential benefits as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and in violation of Art.14, 16 and 21 of the India and be pleased to direct the respondents to pay pension/family pension, gratuity, amount of leave encashment and all other retirement benefits to the petitioners accordingly. (B) The Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to grant pension/family pension, gratuity, amount of leave encashment etc. to the petitioners by considering petitioner no.1 and 2 as well as husband of petitioner no.3 as a permanent employee on completion of 10 years services as per GR dated 17.10.1988 and pay all arrears to the petitioners with 12% interest as per (Annexure-C) GR dt: 17/10/88. (C) Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the amount of gratuity and leave encashment to the petitioners and start paying pension/family pension to the petitioners forthwith so as to enable them to maintain their body and soul together and to have a better medical treatment. (D) Any other and further relief which this Hon’ble Court deem just, fit and proper in the interest of justice may be granted together with cost.” 4. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner no.1 was C/SCA/9679/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 appointed on 01.03.1982, petitioner no.2 was appointed on 01.03.1991 and the late husband of the petitioner no.3 was appointed on 01.09.1982 on daily wage basis with the respondents and whereas, their services had been terminated in the year 1997 which the petitioners had challenged before the learned Labour Court by preferring Reference (LCA) No.610/1998. 4.1. It would appear in this regard that while the reference had originally been rejected by the learned Labour Court on the ground that the Forest Department was not an industry and the same had been challenged by the petitioners before a learned Coordinate Bench, which challenge had failed and ultimately, the same had been challenged before the Hon’ble Division Bench and whereas, the Hon’ble Division Bench had been pleased to allow the appeal and had set aside the order passed by the learned Labour Court as well as of the learned Coordinate Bench and had directed the learned Labour Court to decide the issue once again. 4.2. It also appears that in the remand case, the learned Labour Court had decided the reference in favour of the workmen therein – petitioners herein and whereas, vide an C/SCA/9679/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 award dated 18.01.2022, the learned Labour Court had directed that the petitioners would be entitled for their services prior to the date of the award i.e. from the date of termination till the date of award, treated as continuous service. 5. At this stage, learned advocate Ms.Kamani would draw the attention of this Court to an order dated 14.03.2024 passed in Special Civil Application No.1700/2023 and would submit that the said petition had been preferred by a petitioner who was also one of the workmen before the learned Labour Court in Reference (LCA) No.610/1998 and whereas, the prayer sought in the said writ petition was with regard to granting benefit under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 more particularly treating the period from initial date of appointment to the date of award as a period in continuous service. 5.1. It is submitted by learned advocate Ms.Kamani that vide the said decision, this Court had inter alia directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of benefits under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and whereas, it was further prayed that the period of C/SCA/9679/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 employment from the date of termination till the date of award shall be treated as period during which the petitioners had completed 240 days in each year as per the observation of the learned Labour Court. This Court had also directed that the period of employment from the date of joining, as referred to hereinabove, till the date of award, shall be treated as period in continuous service. 5.2. Learned advocate would submit that the State Government had not challenged the said decision and whereas, the said decision has been complied with. Learned advocate would submit that having regard to such a scenario, this Court may allow the writ petition and grant the prayers as sought for. 6. Learned AGP Mr.Gautam would attempt to contest the present petition, yet, to a pointed query by this Court, learned AGP could not draw any distinction between the petitioner before this Court in Special Civil Application No.1700/2023 and the present petitioners and whereas, learned AGP also could not contest the fact that the petitioner of the said petition was one of the workmen along with the petitioners herein in Reference (LCA) No.610/1998. Page 5 of 9 C/SCA/9679/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 6.1. Learned AGP Mr.Gautam has also raised a dispute with regard to the name of the petitioners and whereas, learned advocate Ms.Kamani in that regard has tendered a joint affidavit by all the three petitioners wherein they have confirmed their identity as workmen before the learned Labour Court in Reference (LCA) No.610/1998. 7. Considering such a position, to this Court, it would appear that the benefit that has enured in favour of the employee in a similar scenario, should also be granted to the present petitioners. Paragraphs No.9 and 10 of the said decision i.e. Special Civil Application No.1700/2023 being relevant for the present purpose, are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:- “9. While the issue could have been directly remanded back to the respondent for consideration, it requires to be observed herein more particularly considering the submissions made by learned Advocate Ms. Kamani that while the petitioner had been appointed in the year 1992 and had been terminated from service in the year 1997, it appears that in the body of the judgement more particularly at paragraph no. 10.2 the learned Labour Court has inter alia observed that ‘upon perusal of the record it becomes undisputed that the workman had worked continuously for 240 days in all the years from the date of employment till the date of termination.’ Thus it would appear that there is no dispute as regards the period prior to termination and whereas from C/SCA/9679/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 01.07.1997 i.e date of termination, till 01.06.2019 i.e. date of regular superannuation, though the petitioner had not worked actually, yet, the said period would be covered under the direction of “continuity of service” as granted by the learned Labour Curt vide award dated 18.01.2022. 10. At this stage, it also requires to be mentioned that the said award had attained finality more particularly there is no challenge to the said award by the respondent State.” 8. In view of the observations as referred to hereinabove, more particularly considering the similarity of facts, to this Court, it would appear that the following directions would meet with the ends of justice:- (i) The respondents, more particularly, respondent no.3 in consultation with respondent no.2 shall consider the case of the petitioners herein i.e. petitioners no.1 and 2 and late husband of the petitioner no.3 for grant of benefit under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. (ii) It is clarified that period from the date of employment – 01.03.1982 (in case of petitioner no.1 and late husband of the petitioner no.3) and 01.03.1991 (in case of petitioner no.2), till the date of termination i.e. 01.07.1997, should be treated as period during which the petitioners have completed 240 days C/SCA/9679/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 in each year as per the observations of the learned Labour Court. (iii) The period from 01.07.1997 till the date of award or the date of retirement or the date of demise, whichever is earlier, would be treated as period in continuous service as directed by the learned Labour Court. (iv) Based upon the above, the State shall consider the case of the petitioners as per paragraph no.1 herein and whereas, the entire exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order and whereas the petitioners (petitioners no.1 and 2 and late husband of the petitioner no.3) shall be paid all benefits including pension / family pension, gratuity, leave encashment and all other consequential benefits as the petitioners (petitioners no.1 and 2 and late husband of the petitioner no.3) would be entitled to, within a period of six weeks thereafter, failing which, the petitioners (petitioners no.1 and 2 and late husband of the petitioner no.3) would be entitled to claim interest at the rate of 6%. (v) In case the petitioners are aggrieved by decision, which C/SCA/9679/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 would be taken by the respondents, as a whole or in part, then it would be open for the petitioners to take appropriate recourse as available to the petitioners under the law. (vi) In case the respondents have any further dispute as regards the identity of the petitioners, it would be open for the respondents to call for appropriate documents for verifying the same. 9. With the above observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of as allowed. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. Direct service is permitted. (NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) Bhoomi Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: BHOOMI YOGESHBHAI MISTRY(HC01557), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 10/10/2025 14:32:00