High Court of Gujarat
VARSHABEN BHUPENDRABHAI TRANSAVALAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
Holding
The Court held that the earlier inter‑party judgment granting the higher pay scale to the librarians is final and binding, and the State cannot overturn it by invoking the later Letters Patent Appeal.
Summary
The State Government in 2009 attempted to cancel a higher pay scale (Rs 5,000‑8,000) granted to librarians who had completed nine years of service, issuing recovery instructions. The librarians challenged the cancellation through Special Civil Applications (Nos. 10305‑10307 of 2009). A Single Judge quashed the cancellation, directing the State to consider the librarians' case in light of a 2008 Tribunal decision and a 2010 Special Civil Application (No. 2955) that affirmed the higher pay scale, a decision later upheld by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 11597 of 2011. The State later sought a fresh hearing under the 2009 order, prompting the present appeal. The Court held that the earlier inter‑party judgment granting the higher pay scale is final and cannot be overridden by the later Letters Patent Appeal No. 20 of 2026, and therefore the State must comply with the earlier order. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, rejecting the State’s attempt to reopen the issue.
Issues considered
- Whether a final inter‑party judgment granting a higher pay scale to librarians can be reopened by the State.
- Whether the decision in Letters Patent Appeal No.20 of 2026 is binding on the parties despite the earlier final judgment.
- Whether the direction to consider the matter afresh under Special Civil Application No.10306 of 2009 is permissible.
- Whether the earlier judgment in Special Civil Application No.2955 of 2010, affirmed by S.L.P. No.11597 of 2011, precludes any further consideration of the pay‑scale issue.
Legislation cited
Subjects
pay scalelibrarianshigher paycancellationjudicial reviewinter‑party judgmentfinalityLetters Patent AppealRight to Information ActSupreme Court affirmation
Judgment
C/LPA/1126/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026
Reserved On : 08/05/2026
Pronounced On : 17/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1126 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/588/2022
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1127 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 515 of 2022
==========================================================
VARSHABEN BHUPENDRABHAI TRANSAVALA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAN DESAI(2481) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. On 28.4.2009, the State Government passed an
order holding that the librarians who had completed nine
years of service after 1.1.1996 would be entitled to a
higher pay scale of Rs 4,500/- to Rs.7,000/- and not
Rs.5,000/- to Rs.8,000/-.
2. Consequently, the Commissioner of Midday Meals &
Schools had issued instructions on 20.5.2009 for
recovering the higher grade pay that had been given to
Page 1 of 8
C/LPA/1126/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026
the librarians.
3. The appellants herein along with two other batch of
librarians, approached this Court by way of filing Special
Civil Application Nos.10305 to 10307 of 2009 challenging
the cancellation of the higher pay scale of Rs.5,000/- to
Rs.8,000/- that was granted to them.
4. The learned Single Judge of this Court clubbed all
the petitions together and passed an order dated
26.9.2017. The learned Single Judge came to the
conclusion that the order cancelling the higher pay scale
was wholly without any basis, inasmuch as this order
dated 28.4.2009 arose out of an information provided
under the RTI Act. The learned Single Judge recorded a
categorical finding that there did not exist any valid order
cancelling the higher pay scale granted to the petitioners
and the higher pay scale granted to them was sought to
be cancelled only on the basis of some information that
had been provided under the RTI Act to one
Harshadkumar J. Parekh. The learned Single Judge,
therefore, quashed the order cancelling the higher pay
scale granted to the petitioners and also the
consequential orders of recovery.
5. The learned Single Judge in the said order has
stated thus:
Page 2 of 8
C/LPA/1126/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026
“11. In view of the aforesaid observations and analysis, I
am of the view that the orders dated 28.04.2009 passed
by the State Government and instructions dated
20.05.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Midday Meals
and schools are required to be quashed and set aside. The
respondent authorities are hereby directed to consider the
case of the petitioners in light of the judgment and order
of Tribunal dated 25.08.2008 rendered in Application
No.142 of 1999 which was confirmed by this Court in
Special Civil Application NO.2955 of 2010 vide order
dated 08.03.2010 and pass appropriate orders granting
the high pay scale in case it is found that the issue is
covered by the judgment and order of Tribunal and this
Court.”
6. It is, thus, clear that the learned Single Judge, on the
petitions filed by the petitioners categorically stated that
there was no valid order cancelling the higher pay scale
granted to the petitioners and the recovery thereof would
be illegal. In other words, the purported cancellation of a
higher pay scale by the State was quashed by the learned
Single Judge. Not only that, but the State was directed to
consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the
judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 25.08.2008,
rendered in Application No.142 of 1999 and which was
confirmed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.
2955 of 2010, which related to Prashantkumar
Hasmukhray Jha. This order has attained finality since the
State did not choose to prefer an appeal against the said
order. The effect of this is that as far as the State of
Gujarat and the petitioners are concerned, there is a
judgment which binds them and which states that the
Page 3 of 8
C/LPA/1126/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026
higher pay scale granted to the petitioners cannot be
cancelled and no recovery can also be given effect to.
7. The State notwithstanding the said order, to which it
was bound, has proceeded to reject the claim for
restoration of the higher pay scale and this has resulted
in petitioners approaching the learned Single Judge.
8. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration
that the issue between the State and the petitioners was
covered by the earlier decision rendered in Special Civil
Application No.10306 of 2009 dated 26.9.2017 has
directed the State to undertake the exercise issued in
Special Civil Application No.10306 of 2009 and pass fresh
orders by hearing the petitioners and assigning specific
reasons.
9. The appellants herein being aggrieved by this
direction to the State to consider the matter afresh have
preferred this appeal.
10. The appellants contend that in Special Civil
Application No.10306 of 2009, there is a judgment
rendered inter-parties, i.e. between the petitioners and
the State, that the cancellation of the higher pay scale of
Rs.5,000/- - 8,000/- was incorrect. They contend that their
case ought to have been considered in line with the
judgment rendered in the case of Prashantkumar
Harshadray Jha in Special Civil Application No.2955 of
Page 4 of 8
C/LPA/1126/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026
2010 and the learned Single Judge could not have,
therefore, given one more opportunity to the State to
reconsider the matter. It is contended that the learned
Single Judge ought to have directed the State to simply
comply with the order that has been passed on
26.09.2017 and it ought not to have given an opportunity
to the State to consider the matter afresh.
11. Basically, it is contended that the issue regarding
grant of higher pay scale to the petitioners has to be
concluded by the decision rendered in Special Civil
Application No.10306 of 2009 and the learned Single
Judge could not have therefore given a chance to the
State to reopen the issue.
12. Learned Assistant Government Pleader on the other
hand strenuously contended that the entitlement of
higher pay scale insofar as librarians are concerned has
been decided in Letters Patent Appeal No.20 of 2026,
whereby the Division Bench had authoritatively
interpreted the relevant Government Resolutions and
held that librarians were not entitled to a higher pay
scale. It is argued that the Division Bench has held that
librarians would only be entitled to a pay scale of
Rs.4,500/- to Rs.7,000/- and not Rs.5,000/- to Rs.8,000/-.
It is also suggested that this Court would be bound by the
decision of the Coordinate Bench and cannot pass a
contrary order.
Page 5 of 8
C/LPA/1126/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026
13. As already noticed above, in the year 2009, the State
Government had attempted to cancel the higher pay scale
that had been granted to the petitioners. This
cancellation of higher pay scale by the State was quashed
by this Court and this was on the premise that in case of a
similar librarian, i.e., Prashantkumar Hasumukhray Jha,
the Tribunal had held that librarians were entitled to a
pay scale of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.8,000/- and this decision of
the Tribunal was affirmed by this Court in Special Civil
Application No.2955 of 2010. It is also not in dispute that
the decision rendered by this Court in Special Civil
Application No.2955 of 2010 has been confirmed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave to Appeal
(Civil) CC No.11597 of 2011.
14. If there is a judgment inter- parties, i.e., between the
appellants and the State, which concludes the issue of
higher pay scale, and if this conclusion arrived earlier, in
the petition filed by the petitioners, was on the basis of a
judgment rendered by this Court, which was confirmed by
the Supreme Court, it would be impermissible for the
State to argue that the said decision will have to be
ignored and the decision rendered in Letters Patent
Appeal No.20 of 2026 would have to be applied.
15. If the argument of the State that the decision
rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.20 of 2026 is to be
Page 6 of 8
C/LPA/1126/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026
applied and as a consequence, the higher pay scale to the
petitioners will have to be denied, then such a course of
action would tantamount to setting aside the order
passed in favour of the petitioners in Special Civil
Application No.2955 of 2010, which has attained finality.
16. In our view, we are not entitled to examine the issue
as to whether the petitioners (appellants herein) are
entitled to higher pay scale or not in view of the decision
rendered in Special Civil Application No.2955 of 2010,
wherein it has been held that the appellants were granted
the higher pay scale lawfully.
17. In the light of the above, the arguments sought to be
advanced the State regarding the applicability of various
judgments would not be available.
18. Consequently, even when the parties have not
challenged the direction in Special Civil Application
Nos.10305 to 10307 of 2009 and the same having
attained finality (for no appeal was preferred therefrom),
as the said decision in Special Civil Application Nos.
10305 to 10307 of 2009 preceded the decision of Apex
Court in S.L.P. No.11597 of 2011, the said exercise (as
directed therein) will have to be complied. Albeit, it is
directed that whilst considering the case of the appellants
herein, due regard be had to the decision of the Apex
Court, rendered in S.L.P. No.11597 of 2011.
Page 7 of 8
C/LPA/1126/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026
19. These appeals stand ALLOWED to aforesaid extent.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)
Sd/-
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
OMKAR
FURTHER ORDER
After pronouncement of the judgment, a request is made
to keep the present order in abeyance for a period of
eight weeks.
We find no reason to stay the present order. Hence, the
stay, as prayed for, is REFUSED.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)
Sd/-
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
OMKAR
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: OMKAR CHHAGANLAL MAHAWAR(HC00201), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/07/2026 17:04:53
Page 8 of 8
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "pay scale"Sign in to search