Back to feed Read the full judgment
IndiaCivil
Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateiliya vs The State Of Gujarat
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- Oct 6, 2026
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 1088
- Judges
- Sanjeev Sachdeva
AI breakdown
- The case is about Gujarat's retired daily wage workers seeking an increment due after retirement.
- The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the workers, allowing them the same increment rights as regular employees.
- This decision was based on previous rulings that recognized similar rights for other employees.
Outcome
The appeal is allowed in the aforestated terms.
Taken from the judgment's conclusion. Check the full text for the exact order.
Parties
Applicant
Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateiliya
Respondent
The State Of Gujarat
Judgment text (excerpt)
Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateiliya vs The State Of Gujarat on 6 October, 2026
Reportable
2026 INSC 1088 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ........................ OF 2026
(@ SLP (C) NO. 26129 OF 2025)
Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya
and others ….. Appellants
versus
The State of Gujarat and others ….. Respondents
JUDGMENT
SANJAY KUMAR, J
1. Leave granted.
2. Successful before a learned Judge of the Gujarat High Court, the
appellants met with failure before a Division Bench of that Court, when the
appeal filed by the respondents was allowed, vide oral order dated
09.01.2025. Assailing the said order, they are before this Court.
3. The grievance of the appellants before the learned Judge was that
they had retired on the 30th of June of various years but were denied the
benefit of the increment which fell due on the 1st of July of those years. By
order dated 26.09.2023, the learned Judge accepted the appellants’ claim
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
as the issue was no longer res integra in view of the judgment of this Court
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2026.10.06
13:28:06 IST
Reason:
in Director (Administration and Human Resources), KPTCL, and
others vs. C.P. Mundinamani and others 1, decided on 11.04.2023.
However, it was contended by the respondents, the State and its
authorities, that the appellants would not be entitled to arrears upon grant
of the increment. Thereupon, the learned Judge noted that, in Pravinbhai
Khemabhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat2, in a similar situation, a
Co-ordinate Bench had directed payment of benefits along with arrears.
This decision stood confirmed in appeal by a Division Bench on
07.08.2023. Reference w…

Source: Indian Kanoon (indiankanoon.org). Indian court judgments are public records; the summary and translations are AI-generated.