Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Marutkumar Parshottambhai Patel, filed a Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking multiple reliefs including quashing of communications dated 19.07.2025 and 21.07.2025, direction to release yearly increments and Dearness Allowance from 01.07.2021, grant of 7th Pay Commission benefits from 01.01.2016 with arrears and 12% interest, restoration of regular employee status instead of fixed pay, restraint on recovery of Rs.19,61,333/-, and transfer back to Siddhpur. At the outset, the learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Raj Tanna raised a preliminary objection that respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot be considered 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, relying on the Division Bench decision in C. A. Shah v. Gujarat Caner and Research Institute, 1992 (1) GLR 687. The Court, after hearing the parties, upheld the objection and dismissed the petition as not maintainable, leaving the petitioner to seek remedy before the appropriate forum. The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the other reliefs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 12 - Definition of State - Maintainability of Writ Petition - The preliminary objection raised was that respondent Nos.2 and 3, being a society, do not fall within the definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in C. A. Shah v. Gujarat Caner and Research Institute, 1992 (1) GLR 687 held that such a society is not a State. Consequently, the writ petition against them is not maintainable. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether respondent Nos.2 and 3 are 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and consequently whether the writ petition is maintainable against them.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances.
Law Points
- Article 12 of the Constitution of India
- Maintainability of writ petition against non-State entity
- Fixed pay employee vs regular employee
- Recovery of excess payment
Case Details
2026 LawText (GUJ) (02) 196
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2490 of 2026
Krishnan M Ghavariya & Mr DM Devnani for the Petitioner, Mr Raj Tanna, AGP for the Respondent No.1
Marutkumar Parshottambhai Patel
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging communications regarding fixed pay status and seeking various service benefits.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of communications dated 19.07.2025 and 21.07.2025, release of yearly increments and DA from 01.07.2021, 7th Pay Commission benefits from 01.01.2016 with arrears and 12% interest, restoration of regular employee status, restraint on recovery of Rs.19,61,333/-, and transfer back to Siddhpur.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was aggrieved by the communications treating him as a fixed pay employee and seeking recovery of excess payment.
Issues
Whether respondent Nos.2 and 3 are 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India?
Whether the writ petition is maintainable against respondent Nos.2 and 3?
Submissions/Arguments
Learned AGP Mr. Raj Tanna submitted that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not 'State' under Article 12, relying on C. A. Shah v. Gujarat Caner and Research Institute, 1992 (1) GLR 687.
Petitioner's counsel argued for maintainability, but the court did not record specific submissions.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable against a society that does not fall within the definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Division Bench in C. A. Shah v. Gujarat Caner and Research Institute.
Judgment Excerpts
At the outset, a preliminary objection was taken by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Raj Tanna by stating that respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot be said to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India...
In view of the aforesaid preliminary objection, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.2490 of 2026 before the Gujarat High Court. At the hearing, a preliminary objection regarding maintainability was raised by the respondent. The court heard the objection and dismissed the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 12, Article 226
