JETPUR NAVAGADH NAGARPALIKAversusYAKUB MUSABHAI DOSANI

     C/LPA/1121/2025                               ORDER DATED: 17/07/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
              R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1121 of 2025
                                  In
                R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/21139/2016
                                 With
              CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
                                  In
              R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1121 of 2025
==========================================================
                       JETPUR NAVAGADH NAGARPALIKA
                                  Versus
                          YAKUB MUSABHAI DOSANI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHAVESH P TRIVEDI(2731) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RR TRIVEDI(941) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DM THAKKAR(894) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

                              Date : 17/07/2026

                               ORAL ORDER

            (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)
      By way of this Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, the petitioner - Jetpur Navagadh Nagarpalika through its Chief
Officer has challenged the order dated 07/07/2025 passed in SCA
No.21139 of 2016, whereby the respondent – original petitioner has been
granted the pay-scale of Rs.5000/- to Rs.8,000/- as was extended to his
predecessors in the office holding the same post prior to him.


2.    The bone contention of the learned Advocate appearing for the
appellant is that the person holding to the same post prior to the
respondent – original petitioner were granted the pay-scale of Rs.5000/-
to Rs.8000/- as they have approached the learned Tribunal; whereas the
petitioner has been granted lower pay-scale of Rs.4,500/- to Rs.7,000/-

                                  Page 1 of 4
      C/LPA/1121/2025                                ORDER DATED: 17/07/2026




which was approved by the Director of Municipality and therefore, the
petitioner cannot claim a higher pay-scale. It was also argued that since
the three other persons who have been granted the higher pay-scale had
approached the learned Tribunal where after adjudication of the issue, the
learned Tribunal has granted such benefits; whereas in the case on hand,
the respondent–original petitioner has not approached the learned
Tribunal and therefore, he could not have been extended such benefits.


2.1    Attention of this Court is also invited to the fact that the respondent
– original petitioner has not raised such claim in time and there was a
delay and latches in raising such issue and in support of such contentions
relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of U.P. Jal
Nigam & Anr., vs. Jaswant Singh & Anr., [(2006) 11 SCC 464]. It is
further submitted that since the delay has been caused in raising such
issue, the original petitioner may not be entitled to claim such benefits
and therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the impugned order may be
quashed and set aside.


3.     Opposing the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the
appellant, learned Advocate for the respondent – original petitioner would
submit that merely because the petitioner has not approached the learned
Tribunal he may not be entitled to such higher pay scale which has been
granted to his predecessor for the same post cannot be the ground for
denial of such benefits. He would further submit that in fact on the basis
of parity also the petitioner is entitled to such higher pay scale.


3.1    He would further submit that granting of higher pay-scale by the
learned Tribunal to the predecessors of the petitioner has been challenged
before this Hon’ble Court by filing SCA No.11940 of 2022 and allied
matters and the decision of the learned Tribunal has attained the finality

                                   Page 2 of 4
      C/LPA/1121/2025                                 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2026




and therefore, the question of denying any higher pay-scale to the
petitioner does not arise.


3.2    Insofar as the arguments on the aspect of delay and latches raised
by the learned Advocates appearing for the appellant is concerned, he
would submit that such argument cannot be accepted as the same was not
raised before the learned Single Judge and therefore, he would submit to
dismiss the appeal.


4.     Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective
parties and examining the record of the case, the facts not in dispute are
that the predecessors of the petitioner have been granted the higher pay-
scale by the learned Tribunal after adjudication of the issue for the same
post which the petitioner was holding on being promoted; the order of the
learned Tribunal granting higher pay-scale has attained the finality by this
Court in a group of writ petitions. Thus, merely because the petitioner
has not approached the learned Tribunal, he cannot be granted the higher
pay-scale; is no ground for denying such relief. The learned Single Judge
has discussed the very said aspect in paragraph No.6 of the impugned
order which is reproduced herein below and this Court is in complete
agreement with the said finding.


       “6.      It is settled law that if the right to a particular scale to a
       particular post has been determined by a competent Court, the
       employer would have to necessarily extend the benefit to all the
       employees who are holding that post and the employer cannot
       contend that the other employees should also approach the Court
       to secure the benefit. Having regard to this settled position, it is but
       necessary to direct the petitioner to the Municipality to extend the
       pay scale of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- to the petitioner as was

                                    Page 3 of 4
       C/LPA/1121/2025                                                              ORDER DATED: 17/07/2026




          extended to his predecessor in office i.e. Shri U. G. Makwana.”


5.        The argument of the learned Advocate for the appellant on the
aspect of delay in raising such issue also cannot be countenanced in view
of the fact that such argument has never been raised before the learned
Single Judge and therefore the same cannot be entertained at this stage.
However, even considering the said aspect of delay and latches equiting
with the facts on the case on hand, the same does not come to the rescue
of the appellant and therefore, it is not sustainable in the eye of law.


6.        For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal fails and is
accordingly dismissed while confirming the order of the learned Single
Judge.


          In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the civil application for stay
would not survive and stands dismissed.

                                                                                            (ILESH J. VORA,J)



                                                                                          (R. T. VACHHANI, J)
sompura


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA SOMPURA(HC00189), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/07/2026 17:01:15




                                                       Page 4 of 4