BHARATBHAI RAMABHAI VANKARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

       C/SCA/13985/2025                                    ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13985 of 2025

=========================================
                          BHARATBHAI RAMABHAI VANKAR & ORS.
                                        Versus
                               STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=========================================
Appearance :
MS VIDHI J BHATT for the Petitioner.
MS DHRUTI PANDYA, AGP for the Respondents.
=========================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

                                  Date : 12/01/2026
                                   ORAL ORDER


1.               Heard learned advocate Ms. Vidhi Bhatt on behalf of
the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.
Dhruti Pandya, behalf of the respondent – State.


2.               By way of this petition, the petitioners inter alia raises
a    grievance        as     regards   not     being   granted   the    bene昀椀t       of
Government           Resolutions       dated     17.10.1988,     15.09.2014          and
06.04.2016 inspite of the petitioners having worked for more than
5 years with the respondents where the petitioners complete more
than 240 days in a year.


2.1.             It is also the case of the petitioners that while
petitioners may have actually worked for a much longer period, if
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Workmen
of American Express International Banking Corporation vs.
Management of American Express International Banking
Corporation [AIR 1986 SC 458] were to be followed by the



                                        Page 1 of 3
        C/SCA/13985/2025                           ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026




respondents i.e. the respondents while calculating the number of
years where the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days
have added Sundays and Public Holidays, which would have enured
in favour of the petitioners.


2.2.              It also appears here that while the petitioner has
preferred representation dated 28.08.2025, the same has not been
decided by the respondents appropriately.


3.                In the considered opinion of this Court, since no
decision has been taken by the respondents, at this stage, the
grievance of the petitioners could be assuaged by directing the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance
with law more particularly in accordance with the directions that
would follow. Learned advocates for the respective parties would
not have any objection to the same. Hence, the following directions
are passed :-


(i)               The petitioner to provide a copy of the petition as
representation to the respondent No.3 with a copy to the
respondent No.2 within a period of two weeks from today.


(ii)              The respondents to decide the same in accordance with
law more particularly in light of the policy of the State Government
vide Government Resolutions dated 17.10.1988, 15.09.2014 and
06.04.2016.


(iii)             The respondents shall while calculating the number of
days put in by the petitioners for the purpose of grant of bene昀椀t as
per the above referred Government Resolutions, shall add Sundays


                                   Page 2 of 3
         C/SCA/13985/2025                                                              ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026




 and Public Holidays to the number of days worked by the
 petitioners in the year concerned more particularly as per the law
 laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Workmen of
 American Express International Banking Corporation (supra).


 (iv)                  The respondents, more particularly respondent No.3 in
 consultation with respondent No.2 shall take appropriate decision
 within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of such
 representation preferred by the petitioner.


 3.1.                  It is clari昀椀ed that this Court has not gone into the
 merits of the matter and whereas, the respondents shall take a
 decision strictly in accordance with law and as per the extant policy
 of the State Government.


 3.2.                  Needless to state that in case the petitioners are
 aggrieved by the said decision, it would be open for the petitioner
 to challenge the same in accordance with law.


 4.                    With these observations and directions, the present
 petition stands disposed of. Direct service is permitted.


                                                                                    (NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)



 SAVARIYA

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: RAJNISH NARENDRA SAVARIYA(HC00179), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 12/01/2026 17:16:06




                                                         Page 3 of 3