PRABHUJI RAMAJI THAKORE(DECEASED)versusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 31-NOTICE DISCHARGED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- MAULIK SHELAT
Holding
The High Court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to seek a declaration and relief from the Labour Court due to the factual dispute over the appointment date.
Summary
The petitioners, legal heirs of the deceased Prabhuji Ramaji Thakore, sought pensionary benefits, contending that the petitioner was appointed in 1980, while the State of Gujarat asserted the appointment occurred in 1984, supported by an attendance sheet. The respondents also indicated that leave encashment had already been paid to the petitioner. The court noted a factual dispute regarding the date of appointment and held that such a matter should be determined by the appropriate Labour Court. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the petition, reserving liberty for the petitioner to approach the Labour Court for a declaration and appropriate relief. No substantive decision on the pension claim was made.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits given the disputed date of appointment.
- Whether the leave encashment claim has been satisfied.
- Whether the High Court can adjudicate the pension claim or should refer the matter to the Labour Court.
Subjects
Judgment
C/SCA/7870/2018 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7870 of 2018
=============================================
PRABHUJI RAMAJI THAKORE(DECEASED) & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS REENA KAMANI FOR MR PH PATHAK(665) for Petitioner(s) No. 1.1
MR SIDDHARTH RAMI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 13/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. With the consent of the learned advocates for the
respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
2. Heard Ms.Reena Kamani, learned advocate for Mr.P.H.
Pathak, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Siddharth
Rami, learned AGP appearing for the State respondents.
3. At the outset, Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned AGP, would
draw the attention of this Court that so far as the claim for
leave encashment is concerned, it has already been paid by
the respondent to the petitioner. Mr. Rami, learned AGP, has
drawn the attention of this Court to the payment of leave
encashment benefits as stated in paras 5 and 6 of the reply
submitted by the respondent.
4. Ms.Kamani, learned advocate for the petitioner, is
unable to controvert the aforesaid facts. Nonetheless, she
Page 1 of 2
C/SCA/7870/2018 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026
would submit that the petitioner is entitled to receive
pensionary benefits as, according to the petitioner, he was
appointed in the year 1980, whereas according to the
respondents, the petitioner was engaged in service in the year
1984 and a attendance-sheet of the petitioner in this regard is
produced on record along with the reply.
5. Since there is a disputed question of fact as regards the
initial date of appointment, it is desirable that the petitioner,
if so advised, may approach the Labour Court concerned
seeking an appropriate declaration and appropriate relief in
regard to the receipt of pensionary benefits.
6. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of,
reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner as aforesaid.
Notice is discharged.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: GAURAVKUMAR JANARDANBHAI THAKER(HC00951), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 13/04/2026 17:48:47
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.