JITUBHAI RAMSANGJI JADEJAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 35-ANY OTHER MODE @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- NIRAL R MEHTA
Holding
The Court directed respondent No. 3 to consider the proposal dated 24 July 2026 within three months and disposed of the petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Jitubhai Ramsangji Jadeja, filed a Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the State of Gujarat and other respondents to examine his case in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Workmen of American Express vs Management of American Express and to grant him specific service benefits, including 240 days of work without artificial breaks. The respondents contended that a proposal concerning the petitioner’s service conditions had already been forwarded by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Jamnagar, on 24 July 2026 to respondent No. 3. The petitioner did not press the petition further but requested the Court to order respondent No. 3 to consider the proposal within a stipulated time. The Court found the request reasonable and exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226. It directed respondent No. 3 to consider the proposal within three months of receipt of the order. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with the said direction.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the State to examine the petitioner’s case in light of the Supreme Court precedent.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the service benefits claimed under the cited Supreme Court judgment.
- Whether the Court should direct the respondent to consider the already‑sent proposal within a specific time‑frame.
Subjects
Judgment
C/SCA/10074/2026 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10074 of 2026
==========================================================
JITUBHAI RAMSANGJI JADEJA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUNAL D PANDYA(9252) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS NAMRATA BHATT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 07/08/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner
has approached this Court with the following
reliefs:
“A) THIS HONOURABLE COURT may be
pleased to admit and allow this
petition;
B) THIS HONOURABLE COURT may be
pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or
any appropriate writ, order or direct,
the respondent authorities to examine
the case of the petitioner within
stipulated period in light of judgment
passed by the Apex court in case of
Workmen Of American Express ... vs
Management Of American Express ...
(AIR 1986 SC 458, 1985).. and
immediately grant all benefits of the
Page 1 of 3
C/SCA/10074/2026 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2026
GR dt 17-10-1988 and
15/09/2014 ,6/04/2016 and including
Sunday Leave, and count the days
properly and An act upon reply vide
communication dated 30-09-
2025(Annexure-I);
C) PENDING PETITION THIS HONOURABLE
COURT may be pleased to direct the
respondent authorities to not the
change the service condition of the
Petitioner and provide work for 240
days without any artificial break
during the year;
D) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to
direct the office of the respondent to
act upon communication dated 30/9/2025
at Annexure-I;
E) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant
such other and further reliefs as are
deemed fit, in the interest of
justice;”
2. At the outset, learned Assistant
Government Pleader Ms.Namrata Bhatt for the
respondent – State has submitted that the
necessary proposal has already been sent by the
Deputy Conservator of Forests, Jamnagar vide
letter dated 24th July, 2026 to the respondent
No.3.
3. Since the proposal has already been
sent, at this stage, Learned Advocate for the
petitioner, does not press the petition any
Page 2 of 3
C/SCA/10074/2026 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2026
further. However, requested this Court to direct
the respondent No.3 to consider the said proposal
in some stipulated time limit.
4. Request appears to be reasonable and
thereby acceded to.
5. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Respondent No.3 is hereby directed to consider
the proposal dated 24th July, 2026 within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of copy
of this order.
Direct service is permitted.
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
ANUP
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ANUP VYOMESH PARIKH(HC00956), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 07/08/2026 18:01:44
Page 3 of 3
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.