VAGHELA JAGDISHBHAI RAMJIBHAIversusDISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

     C/SCA/6274/2026                                     ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6274 of 2026

==========================================================
                     VAGHELA JAGDISHBHAI RAMJIBHAI
                                 Versus
                  DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HIMANISH J JAPEE(11295) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS NIDHI VYAS AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA

                                 Date : 02/07/2026

                                   ORAL ORDER

1.             Since the issue involved in the present
petition is narrow in compass, with the request
and consent of Learned Advocates appearing for
the respective parties, the petition is taken for
final hearing.

2.             Rule,          returnable           forthwith.            Learned
Advocate          Mr.     Kaash      Thakkar         waives      service           of
notice       of        Rule   on    behalf         of   respondent          No.1,
whereas learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.
Nidhi Vyas waives service of notice of Rule on
behalf of respondent NO.2.

3.             At the outset, learned advocates for the
respective             parties     jointly         submitted         that          the


                                     Page 1 of 6
     C/SCA/6274/2026                      ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026




issue raised in all these petitions is covered by
a decision of Division Bench of this Court in
Letters Patent Appeal No.659 of 2024 and other
allied Letters Patent Appeals vide order dated
11th July, 2024 with the direction that the actual
arrears shall be restricted for a period of three
years prior to the filing of the respective writ
petitions.

4.             In view of the aforesaid, at this stage,
since the facts are not much in dispute and for
the sake of brevity, it is not thought it fit to
narrate the same and hereafter. Thus, this Court
would straightaway like to refer the decision of
the Division Bench as under:-


      “19. The Apex Court has held that the
      claim which is related to service
      benefits, one of the exceptions to the
      said rule of delay and latches relating
      to a continuing wrong. It is held that
      where a service-related claim is based
      on a continuing wrong, relief can be
      granted even if there is a long delay in
      seeking remedy, with reference to the
      date on which the continuing wrong
      commenced, if such continuing wrong
      creates a continuing source of injury.
      But there is exception to the exception.
      Ultimately, it is held that the High
      Courts   will   restrict   consequential
      relief relating to arrears normally to a
      period of 3 years prior to the date of
      filing of the writ petition. The Supreme


                            Page 2 of 6
C/SCA/6274/2026                 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026




 court     in     case    of    Rushibhai
 Jagdishchandra Pathak (supra) has held
 that the High Court should not have
 taken the date of decision / judgement
 of the learned Single Judge for grant of
 benefits in view of the decision and
 ration in Tarsem Singh (supra), and
 further it is clarified that “only the
 date of filing of the writ petition is
 relevant while examining the question of
 delay and latches or limitation, and the
 arrears are to be confined for three
 years before the date of filing of the
 writ petition.”.

 20. Hence, the date of filing of the
 respective writ petitions becomes very
 relevant while restricting the arrears
 for three years. In the present group of
 appeals, the writ petitions have been
 filed   after  considerable   delay  and
 hence, the grant of actual arrears to
 such writ petitioners is governed as per
 the law enunciated by the Apex Court in
 the   aforementioned    decisions.   The
 arrears are required to be restricted to
 the period of 3 years prior to the date
 of filing of each of the respective
 petitions. The reliance placed on the
 decision of the Apex Court in the case
 of Lekh Ram (supra) will not apply to
 the present facts, since the issue with
 regard to delay in filing the writ
 petitions by the employee was neither
 raised nor examined.

 21. This   directions   will  only   be
 confined to those employees, who have
 belatedly filed writ petitioners beyond
 three years questioning the action of
 the State authorities in conferring the
 regular pay-scale belatedly, and not

                  Page 3 of 6
      C/SCA/6274/2026                                      ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026




       from their initial date of appointment.

       22. Hence, the directions issued by the
       learned Single Judges in the respective
       writ petitions is altered and all the
       employees shall be entitled to the
       actual arrears from a period of 3 years
       prior to the date of filing of the
       respective   writ    petitions.    It   is
       clarified   that   since   we   have   not
       disturbed the decision with regard to
       the conferment of the regular pay-scale
       from the initial date of appointment,
       the pay fixation and other benefits to
       all   the    employees    shall    counted
       notionally for the intervening period.”

5.              Keeping          in          mind          the         aforesaid
proposition, without entering into the merits of
the     case,           the   following             directions       have       been
passed:

(a) The petition stands allowed;

(b)      The        respondents           are         directed        to      issue
modified          appointment         orders          to   the     petitioners
inasmuch as, the date of the appointment of the
petitioners would be treated as the date on which
they had entered service on regular pay-scale;

(c) Consequential benefits including benefits of
arrears         etc.,         which    the          petitioners        would         be
entitled to upon such placement would be given to
the petitioners for a period of three years prior



                                      Page 4 of 6
      C/SCA/6274/2026                                      ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026




to date of filing of the writ petition;

(d) It is clarified that consequential benefits
would include all benefits as would have been
available               to        the    petitioners            as        if         the
petitioners were appointed on regular basis on
the date of their appointment and would include,
but      not       be        restricted         to    fixing       appropriate
seniority,              fixation        of      pay/opening          of      G.P.F.
account         (if      applicable),             etc.    It    is     clarified
that the petitioners would be treated as being
appointed on regular pay-scale from the date of
their        original             appointments           and     whereas             the
period        prior          to    three     years       from    the      date        of
filing of the writ petitions shall be treated as
notional for all purposes;

(e) Furthermore, to ensure compliance, all the
petitioners are directed to produce copies of the
above order before the appropriate authority to
ensure that the authorities are in the know about
the order of this Court;

(f) The         above         decision        shall      be     complied        with
within a period of four months from the date the
petitioners submit the order in question to the
respective head of the departments.


(g) The authorities are directed to verify the


                                        Page 5 of 6
            C/SCA/6274/2026                                                           ORDER DATED: 02/07/2026




   particulars                    of       the         petitioners                    and         then          grant
   benefits.



                                                                                          (NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
   CHANDRESH


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: CHANDRESH NATVARBHAI SIDDHAPURA(HC01109), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 07/07/2026 17:36:27




                                                         Page 6 of 6