High Court of Gujarat

DATTATREY RADHAKRISHNA KHADAYATEversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

Disposal: DISPOSED AS INFRUCTUOUS
Bench: MAULIK SHELAT

Holding

The petition is infructuous and is dismissed as the pension order already treats the suspension period accordingly.

Summary

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution seeking a declaration that a period of suspension from 30‑Nov‑2004 to 17‑Oct‑2006 be treated as a suspension and an order for the finalisation of his pension. The respondents submitted that a pension order dated 9‑Nov‑2019 had already been issued in the petitioner's favour, rendering the relief sought moot. The Court observed that issuance of the pension order presumes that the suspension period was treated as such by the State and noted that a coordinate bench had dismissed a similar petition in 2015. Consequently, the Court held that the present petition had become infructuous by the efflux of time. The notice was discharged, with liberty reserved for the petitioner to approach a competent court if necessary.

Issues considered

Whether the petition remains maintainable after the State issued a pension order in favour of the petitioner.
Whether the period of suspension from 30‑Nov‑2004 to 17‑Oct‑2006 can be treated as a suspension for pension purposes.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 14, s. 226

Subjects

Constitutional lawWrit petitionArticle 226Article 14PensionSuspensionInfructuous petitionAdministrative law

Judgment

      C/SCA/6174/2019                                ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6174 of 2019

==========================================================
                  DATTATREY RADHAKRISHNA KHADAYATE
                                 Versus
                        STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. FORUM SUKHADWALA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

                              Date : 01/05/2026

                                  ORAL ORDER

[1]    Heard Mr. N.K.Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner as
also Ms. Forum Sukhadwala, learned AGP for the respondents.

[2]    The present writ petition is filed under Articles 14 & 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-

       “A) admit this petition;

       B) be pleased to issue a writ, order and direction and be pleased to
       direct the respondents authorities to take appropriate decision and
       respondent authorities may kindly be directed to pass an appropriate
       order , for treating the period of suspension i.e. 30/11/2004 to
       17/10/2006 as suspension or the said period may kindly be directed to
       be treated as period of suspension and the respondent authorities may
       kindly be directed to pass an appropriate order in this regard
       expeditiously as possible and therefore, appropriate directions may
       kindly be issued upon the respondent authorities.

       C) By way of interim order direct the respondent authorities to
       undertake the process of finalization of pension case of the petitioner


                                    Page 1 of 3
      C/SCA/6174/2019                                    ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026




       pending admission and final hearing of this petition;

       D) pass such orders as thought fit in the interest of justice.”

[3]    At the outset, Ms. Sukhadwala, learned AGP would submit that
during the pendency of this petition, vide order dated 09.11.2019,
pension order has been issued in favour of the petitioner, whereby
petitioner is getting the pension as per rule. According to learned AGP,
nothing would survive in the matter.

[4]    The said order dated 09.11.2019 is ordered to be taken on record.


[5]    Per contra, Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner
would submit that there is no clarity as regards any order passed by
respondents treating the period of suspension i.e. 30.11.2004 to
17.10.2006, as suspension or not.

[6]    According to this Court, once the pension order is issued by the
State, it can be presumed that the said period of suspension must have
been treated as suspension period by the State. Furthermore, once the
petitioner is receiving the pension from the State, nothing further would
survive in the matter, more particularly, in earlier round of litigation,
the petitioner was unable to convince this Court that the said period of
suspension may be regularized or it may be treated as part of duty. As
the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.08.2015 passed
in SCA No.7653 of 2015, dismissed the aforesaid petition.

[7]    In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and subsequent
development which has taken place during the pendency of this mater,
according to my view, the present petition would become infructuous by
efflux of time.



                                     Page 2 of 3
          C/SCA/6174/2019                                                ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026




  [8]       Nonetheless, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file
  appropriate proceedings before appropriate Court in regards to prayer
  made in this petition. Notice stands discharged.




                                                                   (MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
  Lalji Desai


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: LALJI DESAI(HC01558), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 01/05/2026 15:10:10




                                                Page 3 of 3

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Constitutional law"Sign in to search