Court Was Misled, Correct Facts Weren't Shown By Neither Litigant Nor State's Counsel: Gujarat HC Shocked At Incorrect Dept Added As Party

In a contempt plea for non-compliance of an order on extension of increment to retired government employees, the Gujarat High Court expressed its "shock" on noting that the department added as respondent was incorrect and the court was "misled" and not informed of this by the litigant's counsel and even State's counsel "failed" to do so. 

Noting that the employees were in fact serving in Sardar Sarvovar Narmada Nigam Ltd and not Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department which was arraigned as a respondent, a division bench of Justice AS Supehia and Justice Gita Gopi said that these departments have "different identities" and are "distinct" from each other while also noting that based on the single judge's September 2023 directions certain benefits had already been extended.

The court thereafter expressed its displeasure with the parties observing that such instances had happened before in orders passed in group petitions and was inclined to impose costs; it however stopped short of doing so as both the counsel for the litigants and the additional government pleaders extended their apologies assuring the court that the incident will not be repeated.

At the outset the court in its February 3 order said, "During the course of hearing of the present application, a shocking fact has come to our notice that though the contempt proceedings are initiated for non-compliance of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the captioned Writ Petition and upon verification, we have come to know that the department in which the applicants were serving, is not made party respondent i.e. Sardar Sarvovar narmada Nigam Ltd. and instead Narmada, Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpasar Department has been made a party". 

"Time and again, it is noticed by us that the orders are obtained in group of petitions, where numerous employees are made parties who also belong to different departments and correct facts are not pointed out before the learned Single Judges. This is one of such matter. The learned AGPs have also failed to point out the correct status of the petitioners before the learned Single Judges. Though it is noticed that a chart has been annexed in the Writ Petition, however, the same is also incomplete as it does not show under which department the applicants were serving," the court added. 

It further noted the submissions by the additional government pleaders that the applicants had already been extended the benefit of one increment.

As the court was inclined to "impose exemplary cost for misleading the learned Single Judge and this Court", the counsel appearing for the litigant and the additional government pleaders "tendered an apology and have assured that such things will not be repeated again".

The petitioner's counsel sought withdrawal of the contempt which was allowed. The bench however warned the counsel for the parties "to remain careful as and when number of petitions are filed and the correct facts of each of the petitioners shall be tendered in such petitions". 

For context, the contempt plea was for non compliance of September 2, 2023 order passed by single judge directing the state authorities including the Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department to decide the retired employees applications for increment accrued to them and after verification, extend the benefit that the employees are entitled to. This would include all consequential benefits and arrears thereof as available to the petitioners.

The court had also said that this exercise is to be completed by the official respondents/appropriate appointing authorities within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the application preferred by the petitioner.

Subsequently the petitioners moved the contempt plea pointing out that the petitioners had made applications within two weeks of the order on September 6, 2023 and the period in which the applications were to be decided ended on November 2, 2023. However till date no steps had been taken by the authorities with respect to extension of increment. 

The contempt plea was disposed of as withdrawn.

Case Title: GEMARBHAI DALABHAI DESAI & ORS. v/s  S.K.PATEL, SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION MECHANICAL & ORS.

Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 29

Click Here To Read/Download Order