High Court of Gujarat
BUDDHVANI SALIM SULTANBHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Decided
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- NIRZAR S DESAI
Holding
Employees of grant‑in‑aid NGOs performing the same duties as government employees are entitled to the same allowances and benefits as government employees, subject to verification of eligibility.
Summary
The petitioners, employees of a 100% grant‑in‑aid school for children with disabilities, sought to obtain the same benefits (transport allowance, leave encashment, LTC, medical reimbursement, bonus, uniform and washing allowance, etc.) as those granted to employees of government‑run observation and remand homes. The court examined earlier judgments (SCA Nos. 3570 of 1993, 5787 of 1996, 2321 of 2004, among others) which held that the principle of equal pay for equal work applies to employees of public trusts and NGOs performing identical functions as the government. The Division Bench had previously conditioned the benefit on sanctioned posts and proper recruitment rules. The present court found the facts identical and, after allowing the State a period to verify each employee’s eligibility, directed the respondent authorities to grant the requested benefits within twelve weeks. The petition was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- The question whether employees of grant‑in‑aid NGOs providing services identical to government institutions are entitled to the same allowances and benefits as government employees.
- Whether the principle of equal pay for equal work extends to all components of ‘pay’, including allowances.
- Whether the entitlement to benefits can be subject to verification of individual employee details.
Subjects
- equal pay for equal work
- grant‑in‑aid institutions
- government benefits
- NGO employees
- social welfare
- allowances
- verification of eligibility
Judgment
C/SCA/18944/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026
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
Page 1 of 8
C/SCA/18944/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026
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
Page 2 of 8
C/SCA/18944/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026
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
Page 3 of 8
C/SCA/18944/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026
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
Page 4 of 8
C/SCA/18944/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026
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.
Page 5 of 8
C/SCA/18944/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026
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
Page 6 of 8
C/SCA/18944/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026
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
Page 7 of 8
C/SCA/18944/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026
of the writ of the order of this Court.
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 27/01/2026 17:33:28
Page 8 of 8
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.