High Court of Gujarat

HETALBEN JAGDISHBHAI MAKWANAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

Decided: 30 January 2026
Disposal: 26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE
Bench: NIRZAR S DESAI

Holding

The petition is dismissed for lack of evidence of the required service period, and the petitioner is directed to approach the Labour Court to prove her entitlement.

Summary

The petitioner, Hetalben Jagdishbhai Makwana, filed a special civil application seeking a writ of mandamus directing the State of Gujarat to grant her benefits under a Government Resolution dated 17‑10‑1988, which requires a minimum of 240 days of work per year for ten years. The petition also sought arrears, interest, and salary for an interregnum period. The Court observed that the petition contained no evidence showing the petitioner had satisfied the work‑day requirement, which is essential to establish eligibility for the benefits. Consequently, the Court held that the matter is a question of fact that must be determined by the Labour Court, where the petitioner can present evidence. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, with a clarification that the dismissal does not preclude the petitioner from approaching the Labour Court for relief.

Issues considered

What is the evidentiary requirement to establish eligibility for benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17‑10‑1988?
Can the High Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the grant of such benefits in the absence of evidence of the required service period?
Is the petition maintainable before the High Court, or should the matter be decided by the Labour Court?

Subjects

mandamus
government resolution
service benefits
labour court
evidentiary requirement
special civil application
dismissal

Judgment

     C/SCA/416/2026                              ORDER DATED: 30/01/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 416 of 2026

==========================================================
                      HETALBEN JAGDISHBHAI MAKWANA
                                  Versus
                         STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
PRIYAL YATIN SHAH(8996) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA DAVDA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

                             Date : 30/01/2026

                              ORAL ORDER


1.    Heard learned advocate Ms. Priyal Yatin Shah for the
petitioner. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed
for the following reliefs:


      (a) Your Lordships May Pleased To admit the petition.

      (b) Your Lordship May Pleased To allow the petition by
      issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
      writ, direction and/or order in the nature of mandamus
      directing the respondents authorities grant benefit of
      government resolution dated 17.10.1988 from the date
      from which she became entitled for the same along with
      arrears and interest in the interest of justice.

      (c) Your Lordships May Be Pleased To direct respondent
      authorities to release the salary for the interregnum
      period from subsequent termination till her reinstatement


                                 Page 1 of 3
     C/SCA/416/2026                                       ORDER DATED: 30/01/2026




      vide order dated 07.02.2020 (annexure-f) along with
      interest.

      (D) Your Lordships may be pleased to award any such
      other and further relief as may be deemed just and
      expedient in the interest of justice.


2.    Though          the    aforesaid       prayers   are   made,       the    basic
requirement of having worked for 240 days in a year for a
period of 10 years, as provided under the Government
Resolution dated 17.10.1988. There is no material in the
petition to indicate for how many days and in which years the
petitioner has worked, so as to enable this Court to arrive at a
conclusion that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to the
benefits     under          the   said       Government      Resolution         dated
17.10.1988.


3.    It is not that, in the absence of any material, this Court
has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled
to the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988;
but for what period and for how many days the petitioner has
worked is a matter of evidence, and therefore, it will be open
for the petitioner to approach the Labour Court and to lead
evidence in respect of the above aspects, if any appropriate
application is preferred before the Labour Court with the same


                                         Page 2 of 3
               C/SCA/416/2026                                                                ORDER DATED: 30/01/2026




     prayer.


     3.          In view of the above, the present petition is required to
     be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.


                 It is clarified that it shall be open for the petitioner to
     approach the Labour Court to prove her case, and if such
     proceedings are initiated, the Labour Court shall consider the
     case of the petitioner on its own merits and on the basis of
     evidence that may be led during the proceedings. The present
     dismissal shall not come in the way of the petitioner.




                                                                                                  (NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
     BHAVIN MEHTA




Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE I, at High Court of Gujarat on 30/01/2026 17:07:04




                                                               Page 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.