IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 416 of 2026 ========================================================== HETALBEN JAGDISHBHAI MAKWANA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: PRIYAL YATIN SHAH(8996) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR ADITYA DAVDA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI Date : 30/01/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Priyal Yatin Shah for the petitioner. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (a) Your Lordships May Pleased To admit the petition. (b) Your Lordship May Pleased To allow the petition by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction and/or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents authorities grant benefit of government resolution dated 17.10.1988 from the date from which she became entitled for the same along with arrears and interest in the interest of justice. (c) Your Lordships May Be Pleased To direct respondent authorities to release the salary for the interregnum period from subsequent termination till her reinstatement p. 2 vide order dated 07.02.2020 (annexure-f) along with interest. (D) Your Lordships may be pleased to award any such other and further relief as may be deemed just and expedient in the interest of justice. 2. Though the aforesaid prayers are made, the basic requirement of having worked for 240 days in a year for a period of 10 years, as provided under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. There is no material in the petition to indicate for how many days and in which years the petitioner has worked, so as to enable this Court to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to the benefits under the said Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 3. It is not that, in the absence of any material, this Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988; but for what period and for how many days the petitioner has worked is a matter of evidence, and therefore, it will be open for the petitioner to approach the Labour Court and to lead evidence in respect of the above aspects, if any appropriate application is preferred before the Labour Court with the same p. 3 prayer. 3. 3. In view of the above, the present petition is required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. It is clarified that it shall be open for the petitioner to approach the Labour Court to prove her case, and if such proceedings are initiated, the Labour Court shall consider the case of the petitioner on its own merits and on the basis of evidence that may be led during the proceedings. The present dismissal shall not come in the way of the petitioner. (NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) BHAVIN MEHTA