THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONversusSUSHILABEN PRANLAL PANDYA

     C/LPA/585/2026                               ORDER DATED: 14/07/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 585 of 2026
                                   In
                  R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/109/2017
                                  With
               CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026
                                   In
               R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 585 of 2026
==========================================================
      THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL
                     CORPORATION & ANR.
                           Versus
              SUSHILABEN PRANLAL PANDYA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DEEP D VYAS(3869) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR BHAVESH DESAI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR IM PANDYA(546) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

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

                            Date : 14/07/2026

                              ORAL ORDER

           (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)

      By way of this Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters
Patent Act, the appellant – the Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad
Municipal Corporation - original respondent No.2 challenges the oral
order dated 23/07/2025 passed in SCA No.109 of 2017, whereby the
learned Single Judge has allowed the said SCA and directed the
appellants to incorporate the yearly increments that the respondent herein
was entitled to during the period of probation of three years and to re-fix
her pension.




                                 Page 1 of 7
      C/LPA/585/2026                              ORDER DATED: 14/07/2026




2.     The short facts for adjudication of the present appeal as emerging
from the impugned order are that respondent was appointed as Staff
Nurse in the year 1982 and during the said tenure, an advertisement was
published in the year 2010 for the post of Assistant Nursing Tutor
whereupon the respondent herein applied and appointed while
incorporating condition viz., condition No.6 in the appointment order
granting pay-protection with the salary and benefits currently she is
receiving for the post of Staff Nurse at Sheth V S Hospital until she
complete her probationary period (three years as an assistant) in the post
of Assistant Nursing Tutor. However, in spite of this specific pay
protection was granted to the respondent herein, the appellant herein
while confirming the services as a Nursing Tutor have imposed a
condition that for the period when respondent worked as a probationer on
a fixed salary for a period of three years, the said period shall not be
considered for computing the pension, bonus, LTC and other benefits.


2.1    The respondent therefore made several representations before the
authority; however the same has not found favour and ultimately the
respondent moved this Court by filing a Special Civil Application seeking
direction to the appellant to revise her pension and re-fix the pension by
incorporating the increments for the period during which respondent
discharged her duty as a probationer i.e. from 2010 to 2013.


2.2    The relief prayed for by the respondent is opposed by the appellant
on the ground that the respondent having accepted the post of Assistant
Nursing Tutor and was on the fixed salary during the period of probation,
she cannot be permitted to seek for the benefits of the increments and it


                                 Page 2 of 7
      C/LPA/585/2026                              ORDER DATED: 14/07/2026




was therefore submitted that the petition may be dismissed.


3.     The learned Single Judge of this Court after hearing the learned
Advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the
pleadings made before the Court allowed the said writ petition and
directed the appellants to incorporate the yearly increments that the
respondent was entitled to during the period of probation of three years
and to re-fix her pension.


4.     Learned Advocate Mr.Deep Vyas appearing for the appellant –
Corporation would submit that the pay protection only safeguards the last
drawn salary and does not confer entitlement to increments during
probation, more particularly, when the nature of appointment was fresh
appointment. He would further submit that the recruitment rules
contemplated the appointment on fixed pay during the probation; whereas
the administrative orders cannot travel beyond the statutory recruitment
rules. Learned Advocate for the appellant would submit that the
respondent having accepted the appointment on the post of Assistant
Nursing Tutor and known to the fact that it was a fixed salary during the
period of probation, respondent may not be entitled to such benefits.


4.1    Learned Advocate for the appellant would further submit that when
the respondent was made permanent on the post of Assistant Nursing
Tutor as per the Resolution No.G.D. Est No.1/0914, whereby the period
of probation was reduced to three years from five years; with a condition
that the respondent would not be entitled to the pension, LTC,
encashment of leave, or any other financial benefit, for the period from


                                 Page 3 of 7
      C/LPA/585/2026                                ORDER DATED: 14/07/2026




the date of her appointment in the fixed pay till the period of her regular
appointment in the regular grade pay, which was granted as per condition
No.6 in the appointment order. He would therefore submit that the
respondent would not be entitled to any such benefits for the fixed term
period.


4.2    By making the aboves submissions, learned Advocate for the
appellant would submit to allow the present appeal.


5.     Per contra, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent –
employee would submit that the learned Single Judge has after
considering the facts of the case and the material placed before the Court,
more particularly, the condition No.6 of the appointment order has
granted such benefits and therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned
order suffers from any illegality or perversity. He would further submit
that the learned Single Judge has passed the well reasoned order and
therefore, this Court may not interfere with the same and dismiss the
appeal.


5.1    Learned Advocate for the respondent – employee would further
submit that present appeal has been preferred only after the respondent –
employee moved this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act seeking to
implement the directions issued by the learned Single Judge and thus the
filing of the present appeal is nothing; but an attempt to frustrate the very
purpose of implementation of the directions issued by the learned Single
Judge in the contempt proceedings and therefore, in his submissions the
present appeal may be dismissed.


                                  Page 4 of 7
     C/LPA/585/2026                               ORDER DATED: 14/07/2026




6.      Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective
parties and examining the impugned order passed by the learned Single
Judge, what transpires from the record that while appointing the
respondent on the post of Assistant Nursing Tutor, the specific condition
was incorporated in the order of appointment viz., condition No.6 that
since the respondent was serving as a Staff Nurse at Sheth V. S. Hospital
for a long time, she shall be granted pay protection with the salary and
benefits she currently receives for the post of Staff Nurse until she
completes her probationary period (three years as an Assistant) in the
post of Assistant Nursing Tutor. Thus, the respondent was though under
the probation for a period of three years, during which, under the terms of
appointment, though she was to get a fixed salary in the normal course,
she would be getting the same pay and the benefits flowing from her
original post of Staff Nurse and therefore the respondent would be
entitled not only to the same salary she received but also to the
increments which would automatically accrued on her salary on the post
of Staff Nurse. The learned Single Judge has categorically dealt with and
discussed the issue of pay-protection in paragraph 8 and 9 of the
impugned order which is quoted hereunder and this Court does not find
any infirmity in the impugned order.


      “(8) As already stated above, the very concept of pay protection is
      to ensure that an employee's pay is protected and this would be in
      the light of the fact that the new appointment would entail a
      reduction in the pay. The respondents while appointing the
      petitioner as an Assistant Nursing Tutor have categorically
      assured the petitioner that she would be granted pay protection not


                                 Page 5 of 7
     C/LPA/585/2026                                ORDER DATED: 14/07/2026




      only with the salary but also the benefits that she currently
      received as a Staff Nurse. It cannot be in dispute that the benefit of
      securing yearly increment is also a benefit that goes along with the
      salary that the petitioner was getting as a Staff Nurse. The
      respondents by virtue of granting pay protection not only in the
      salary but also the benefits cannot be permitted to contend that the
      grant of increments for the probationary period of three years
      cannot be considered while computing the pensionary benefits of
      the petitioner.


      (9) As far as the argument that the petitioner accepted the order of
      appointment, which excluded this benefit of increments for three
      years and she thereafter has filed the petition in the year 2017 is
      concerned, it is to be held that the respondents cannot approbate
      and reprobate. The respondents were categorical in 2012 when
      they appointed the petitioner and had stated that the pay and the
      other benefits of the petitioner was getting as a Staff Nurse would
      be protected. This pay protection of both the salary and the
      benefits cannot be undone by imposing a condition while
      confirming the services of the petitioner as an Assistant Nursing
      Tutor. It is to be kept in mind that the terms of appointment would
      prevail and these terms of appointment cannot be modified or
      reduced to the detriment of the an employee at the time of her
      confirmation.”



      Thus, this Court may not require to reiterate the findings arrived at
by the learned Single Judge and is in complete agreement with the same


                                 Page 6 of 7
          C/LPA/585/2026                                                            ORDER DATED: 14/07/2026




as the condition No.6 mentioned in the appointment order issued by the
appellant itself granting the pay-protection with the salary and other
benefits until she completes the probation period; which later on, cannot
be permitted to be modified without there being any substance.


7.         In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Consequently, the appellants are directed to extend the benefits of yearly
increments which the respondent – employee was entitled to during the
period of probation of three years and accordingly to re-fix her pension.
Such exercise of re-fixation of pension as well as actual compliance shall
be undertaken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of
the writ of this order.


8.         In light of dismissal of the appeal, Civil Application for stay would
not survive and stands dismissed.


9.         Before parting with the order, it is made clear that finding recorded
herein above shall be confined to the case on hand only and shall not be
treated as precedent in any case.


                                                                                             (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 15/07/2026 17:27:08




                                                       Page 7 of 7