IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.18944 of 2023 ========================================= BUDDHVANI SALIM SULTANBHAI & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================= Appearance : MR NACHIKET D MEHTA for the Petitioners. MR HENIL SHAH, AGP for the Respondents. ========================================= CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI Date : 27/01/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Mr. Nachiket D. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Henil Shah, learned AGP for the State. 2. The petitioners have prayed to direct the respondent authorities to grant the benefits such as Transport Allowance, Leave Encashment at the time of retirement, LTC, Medical Reimbursement, Bonus, Uniform and Washing Allowance to all the petitioners as given to the petitioners of SCA Nos.5687 of 2021, 3570 of 1993, 5787 of 1996, 2321 of 2004 and 10209 of 2014 who are identically situated persons as the petitioners. 3. The facts in brief would indicate that the petitioners were employees of 100% grant-in-aid School for the Children with disabilities. It is their case that they be given the benefits as prayed for at par with the institutions owned by the Government. 4. Mr. Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the p. 2 petitioners would draw the attention of the court to the order dated 14.06.2006 passed in Special Civil Application No.3570 of 1993 wherein the association namely Regional Probation And After Care Association came before the court praying for similar benefits. It was a trust which had two observation homes for the purpose of care and protection of children and was receiving grant-in-aid. This court vide order dated 14.06.2006 allowed the petition observing as under :- “10. The distinguishing feature pointed out by the learned advocate on which the decision of the Hon'ble the Apex Court is applicable, also considered. In the case before the Hon'ble the Apex Court the facts were that the colleges run by private management and colleges run by the Government were treated differently. Same are the facts in the case before this Court. Here the Observation Homes run by public trust are treated differently than the one run by Government. Therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble the Apex Court will govern the field. It is also required to be noted that in the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.2915 of 1995, the institutions seeking parity were for two different sets of subjects. Though the institutions were engaged in social welfare activity, one set of institutions were engaged in welfare and upliftment of handicapped women and children and rendering assistance to the poor, destitute, needy widows, orphan women, girls and children, the other set of institutions were engaged in the field of social p. 3 welfare of handicapped persons. That being so, this Court finds no reason why the relief as prayed for be denied to the petitioners. 11. Since the respondents have not disputed the fact of discharge of the same duties by the employees of the petitioner-public trust as that of the employees of observation homes/ remand homes run by the Government, the principle of equal pay for equal work will apply. Here, the term, 'pay' will include all allowances also and not the mere pay scale. That being so, the employees of the petitioner-public trust shall be entitled to receive all the benefits which are received by the employees of the observation homes/ remand homes run by the Government. 12. In the result, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to give grant-in-aid to the petitioner-trust for the benefits like Medical Allowance, Leave Travel Concession, Uniform, Washing Allowance, Leave Encashment, Festival and Food Allowance and all other allowances as granted to the employees of observation homes/ remand homes run by the Government along with the benefits like bonus, pension, gratuity and other similar benefits which are granted to the employees of observation homes/ remand homes run by the Government. Order/ letter dated 17th February 1992 issued by the respondent authorities is hereby p. 4 quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.” 5. Thereafter, an appeal was filed by the State being Letters Patent Appeal No. 1315 of 2006 wherein the Division Bench passed the following order on 05.12.2012 :- “17. Letters Patent Appeal No.1315 of 2006 shall also stand partly allowed to the extent that the direction for availability and entitlement of the allowances at par with the employees of the Homes run by the Government, as observed by the learned Single Judge, shall remain, but with the condition that the posts for such purpose are duly sanctioned by the concerned Authority and such employees have entered the service after following concerned recruitment Rules as approved by the competent Authority.” 6. Thereafter, a challenge before the Apex Court also failed and therefore following the orders as quoted herein above, the benefits were granted to the petitioners therein and also based on the said decisions, the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 2321 of 2004 were also given the same benefits. This Court on 02.05.2017 passed the following order in Special Civil Application No. 2321 of 2004 :- “12. As aforesaid, similar issue was considered by this Court in Special Civil Application No.3570 of 1993 and Special Civil Application No. 10483 of p. 5 1999. The Special Civil Application No.3570 of 1993 was allowed by this Court directing the respondent- State Government to give grant-in-aid to the petitioner-trust for the benefits like Medical Allowance, Leave Travel Concession, Uniform, Washing Allowance, Leave Encashment, Festival and Food Allowance and all other allowances as granted to the employees of observation homes/ remand homes run by the Government along with the benefits like bonus, pension, gratuity and other similar benefits which are granted to the employees of observation homes/remand homes run by the Government. The Special Civil Application No.10483 of 1999 filed by the State of Gujarat was also allowed by holding that the State is not liable to make payment of gratuity and observed that against the liability fixed upon the respondent-Trust, the said Trust has not come up with any Writ Application, therefore, their liability is absolute. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 14.06.2006 in Special Civil Application No. 3570 of 1993, the State of Gujarat preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.1315 of 2006, and being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 03.08.2007 in Special Civil Application No.10483 of 1999, the Trust through its Trustees, preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.1913 of 2007. Since, Special Civil Application No. 5787 of 1996 preferred by the District Probation and After Care Association involves similar aspects, all the three matters i.e. p. 6 Special Civil Application No. 5787 of 1996, Letters Patent Appeal No.1913 of 2007 and Letters Patent Appeal No.1315 of 2006 were heard together and the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Jayant Patel and Mohinder Pal, JJ.) vide oral judgment dated 05.12.2012 allowed Letters Patent Appeal 1913 of 2007, Special Civil Application No. 5787 of 1996 and partly allowed Letters Patent Appeal No. 1315 of 2006. 13. Although the above decision taken by the Division Bench of this Court was challenged by the respondent-State Government by filing Special Leave Petition, but it is also a matter of fact that no stay has been granted against the said judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. 14. Under the circumstances, the respondent- State Government is bound to follow the directives given by the Division Bench of this Court. The case of the petitioners is also similar to the above mentioned Special Civil Application No.5787 of 1996, Letters Patel Appeal No.1913 of 2007 and Letters Patel Appeal No.1315 of 2006. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid decision, this Court is of the view that the petitioners, who are rendering services against the sanctioned posts in N.G.O's (Non-Government Voluntary Organisation), which are Grant-in-Aid institutions, are also eligible and p. 7 entitled to get benefit available to the Government employees, and those who are working with the Government institutions under the Social Welfare and Social Defence Department.” 7. It is undisputed as is evident from the order dated 29.05.2019 that in case of the petitioners the benefits prayed for in those petitions were granted to such employees. Even in the case of petitioners of Special Civil Application No.2321 of 2004, the Division Bench had dismissed the appeal filed assailing the order passed in Special Civil Application No.2321 of 2004. 8. Therefore, it is evident that the facts of the case of the present petitioners are identical to employees who are entitled to similar benefits as were granted to the beneficiaries of the petitioners referred to hereinabove. 9. Mr. Henil Shah, learned AGP would submit that the petition has about 23 petitioners. The State be given time to verify the details of each employee with regard to the entitlement in accordance with the decision rendered by this Court as referred to hereinabove. That appears to be a reasonable request on behalf of the State. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to give such benefits as prayed for in the petition subject to verification of details of each employee listed in the petition or if a fresh list is given to the authorities of the employees listed in the petition. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt p. 8 of the writ of the order of this Court. Direct service is permitted. (NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) SAVARIYA