Minimum Four‑Hour Threshold for Fixed Pay of Part‑Time Gujarat Government Employees under the 16.07.2019 Circular

Case: Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
Coram: A.S. Supehia J. & L.S. Pirzada J. (Division Bench)
Case No.: R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1197 of 2025 in R/Special Civil Application No. 14995 of 2024
Date of Judgment: 03 November 2025
Disposition: Letters Patent Appeal dismissed; Single Judge’s order affirmed; connected Civil Application disposed of.

I. Introduction

The decision in Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. addresses a recurring controversy in Gujarat service jurisprudence: who exactly is entitled to the fixed monthly remuneration of ₹14,800/‑ under the State Finance Department Circular dated 16.07.2019, issued for part‑time employees working in Government departments?

The core dispute is narrow but practically significant. The State’s administrative authorities contended that only part‑time workers rendering “more than four hours” of daily work could claim the benefit of the Circular, while those working exactly four hours stood excluded. The original writ petitioner, a part‑time employee admittedly working four hours per day, claimed that the benefit extended to all part‑time employees working four hours or more.

The Single Judge, by order dated 25.06.2025 in Special Civil Application No. 14995 of 2024, accepted the petitioner’s position, directed verification of his working hours, and – upon such verification – mandated extension of the 16.07.2019 benefits with effect from 01.01.2019. The Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, and another authority challenged this before a Division Bench via Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 1197 of 2025.

The Division Bench has now affirmed the Single Judge and, in doing so, has:

• Clarified the interpretation of the Finance Department Circular dated 16.07.2019;
• Reaffirmed a coordinate Bench’s earlier ruling that part‑time employees working less than four hours are not covered by this scheme; and
• Resolved the ambiguity whether employees working exactly four hours are included in the entitlement to fixed pay of ₹14,800/‑.

The judgment, therefore, provides an important interpretive precedent on wage entitlements of part‑time government employees and the meaning of threshold phrases such as “upto four hours” and “more than four hours” in executive circulars.

II. Summary of the Judgment

A. Central Issue

The Division Bench addressed the following key question:

• Whether a part‑time government employee who works exactly four hours per day is entitled to the fixed monthly pay of ₹14,800/‑ under the Gujarat Finance Department Circular dated 16.07.2019, or whether that Circular limits the benefit only to those working more than four hours.

B. Findings

The Court’s principal findings can be summarised as follows:

• It is admitted that the original writ petitioner (respondent no. 2 in the LPA) is a part‑time employee working for four hours per day.
• The Finance Department Circular dated 16.07.2019, when read in its entirety and in the context of prior directions in PIL No. 244 of 2014, entitles part‑time employees working for four hours or more to a fixed pay of ₹14,800/‑.
• The Circular does not extend this entitlement to employees working less than four hours per day.
• A coordinate Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 724 of 2023 and allied matters (judgment dated 11.08.2023) has already held that employees working less than four hours are not covered by the 16.07.2019 Circular. That ruling is binding and is followed here.
• The expression in the Circular referring to part‑time employees working “upto four hours” must be understood to mean that, in order to claim ₹14,800/‑, a part‑time worker must have actually completed at least four hours of work – not any duration less than four hours.
• The Single Judge’s direction – to verify whether the petitioner is indeed working four hours or more and, if so, to extend the benefit of the Circular – is consistent with law and warrants no interference in intra‑court appeal.

C. Operative Result

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s declaration of entitlement and the consequential directions for:

• Verification of the respondent‑employee’s daily working hours by the departmental authorities (respondent nos. 2 and 3 in the writ);
• Submission of an appropriate proposal to the State Government (respondent no. 1) within four weeks if four hours or more work is confirmed; and
• Sanction and payment of the fixed pay of ₹14,800/‑ per month with effect from 01.01.2019 within six weeks of the proposal being received.

The connected Civil Application for stay also stood disposed of as a consequence of dismissal of the appeal.

III. Factual and Procedural Background

A. Status of the Original Petitioner

The original petitioner (respondent no. 2 in the LPA) is a part‑time employee working under the Animal Husbandry Department. Crucially, it was not disputed by the appellants that he was engaged for four hours per day. This factual admission is recorded and relied upon both by the Single Judge and by the Division Bench.

B. The Finance Department Circular dated 16.07.2019

The 16.07.2019 Circular (Finance Department, State of Gujarat) was issued in the backdrop of directions in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 244 of 2014. From the portions reproduced and summarised in the present judgment, the scheme appears to have developed thus:

• Pursuant to the PIL judgment, the Government had fixed:
  • ₹220/‑ per day for part‑time employees working for more than four hours, and
  • ₹110/‑ per day for part‑time employees working “upto four hours” (described in the Bench’s paraphrase as those “actually working for four hours”).
• The 16.07.2019 Circular then consolidated the wages and declared that “all the part‑time employees” of the specified category would be entitled to a fixed pay of ₹14,800/‑ per month.

The interpretive controversy has consistently been:

• Does “all the part‑time employees” include those working less than four hours per day?
• Does it include those working exactly four hours, or only those working more than four hours?

The present appeal squarely concerns the second question.

C. The Single Judge’s Order dated 25.06.2025

In the writ petition (Special Civil Application No. 14995 of 2024), the original petitioner claimed the benefit of the 16.07.2019 Circular from 01.01.2019. The Single Judge, having recorded the fact that the petitioner was working for four hours, held in paragraph 7 of the order:

Thus, the Single Judge treated “four hours or more” as the qualifying threshold for entitlement under the Circular and ordered consequential steps.

D. Appeal to the Division Bench (LPA No. 1197 of 2025)

The departmental authorities (Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry & another) filed the present Letters Patent Appeal challenging the Single Judge’s order. At the admission stage itself, after hearing all sides, the Division Bench proceeded to decide the matter finally.

• Mr. Pradip J. Patel appeared for the appellants (departmental authorities).
• Ms. Shruti Dhruve, AGP, appeared for respondent no. 1 (State of Gujarat).
• Mr. Dipak R. Dave appeared for respondent no. 2 (original petitioner/employee).

IV. Detailed Analysis of the Judgment

A. Arguments Presented

1. Appellants’ Contentions

The appellants advanced a largely textual argument based on the wording of the 16.07.2019 Circular and a prior Division Bench decision:

• They relied heavily on a coordinate Bench judgment dated 11.08.2023 in LPA No. 724 of 2023 and allied matters, where the Court held that part‑time employees working for less than four hours are not entitled to the ₹14,800/‑ fixed pay under the 16.07.2019 Circular.
• They contended that, as per the Circular, only those part‑time employees working for “more than four hours” qualify for the pay scale, and that an employee working exactly four hours falls outside that bracket.
• Therefore, according to the appellants, the Single Judge’s direction to treat the respondent‑petitioner as entitled – even if he worked four hours – was contrary to the plain language of the Circular and to the ratio of the 2023 Division Bench judgment.

2. Respondent‑Employee’s Contentions

The respondent‑employee, through counsel, supported the Single Judge’s reasoning:

• The Circular, properly interpreted, does not exclude part‑time employees who work exactly four hours per day.
• The appellants had not disputed the fact that the respondent works for at least four hours daily; the only dispute was on the interpretation of the Circular.
• Since the Single Judge had only directed a verification of existing working hours – already admitted to be four hours – the order was lawful and aligned with the Circular and earlier judicial directions.

3. State’s Position

The Assistant Government Pleader (AGP), appearing for the State, made a clarificatory submission on the meaning of the Circular:

• The expression in the Circular should be read to mean that part‑time employees must complete at least four hours of work to become entitled to the minimum fixed pay of ₹14,800/‑.

This position is effectively supportive of the Single Judge’s conclusion that four hours is the threshold, not a ground for exclusion.

B. Precedents and Earlier Judicial Directions

1. PIL No. 244 of 2014

The judgment refers to Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 244 of 2014 as the origin of the wage structure for part‑time employees. While the present order does not reproduce the full reasoning of the PIL judgment, it indicates that:

• The Government, pursuant to that PIL judgment, fixed:

This framework created two distinct slabs based on daily working hours. The 16.07.2019 Circular later consolidated this daily wage structure into a fixed monthly remuneration. The present Division Bench draws on this background to understand the intention of the Circular.

2. Letters Patent Appeal No. 724 of 2023 and Allied Matters (Judgment dated 11.08.2023)

The appellants relied on a coordinate Division Bench decision in LPA No. 724 of 2023 and allied cases, which considered the very same Circular of 16.07.2019. That Bench had examined claims of part‑time employees working less than four hours per day who sought the benefit of the ₹14,800/‑ fixed pay.

The 2023 Bench held that:

• The Circular was issued on a wrong assumption insofar as it was understood to extend benefits to part‑time employees working for less than four hours.
• As a result, part‑time employees working less than four hours were not entitled to the fixed pay of ₹14,800/‑ under the Circular.

In the present judgment, paragraph 9 explicitly adopts this earlier view and reiterates that employees working less than four hours are excluded from the ambit of the 16.07.2019 scheme. This reaffirmation consolidates the law on that point.

At the same time, the 2023 decision did not squarely address the narrower question raised here: whether those working exactly four hours are in or out. That question is now resolved by the 2025 ruling.

C. Legal Reasoning of the Division Bench

1. Factual Foundation: Admission of Four-Hour Work

The Bench starts from the undisputed factual basis:

• It is “not in dispute and in fact, admitted” that the respondent‑employee is working for four hours as a part‑timer (para 7).
• The Single Judge had recorded this admission and built the relief on that foundation.

Since the controversy was purely on interpretation of the Circular and not on disputed facts, the Division Bench could confine itself to questions of law.

2. Textual and Contextual Reading of the Circular

In paragraphs 8 and 8.1, the Court closely examines the Circular and reconstructs its scheme:

• Originally, under the PIL‑driven policy:
  • Part‑timers working more than four hours → ₹220/‑ per day;
  • Part‑timers working “upto four hours” (described as “actually for four hours”) → ₹110/‑ per day.
• The 16.07.2019 Circular later consolidated this into a fixed monthly wage, declaring that “all the part-time employees will be entitled to a fix pay of Rs.14,800/‑.”
• The Court emphasises that:
  “the Circular nowhere mentions that an employee, who is working less than four hours, is entitled to the fixed pay of Rs.14,800/‑.”
• Therefore, the Court reads the Circular as covering: employees working for four hours or more while excluding those working less than four hours.

The interpretive move here is to treat the phrase “all the part-time employees” as referring to the established class of beneficiaries in the earlier regime – namely, those actually rendering at least four hours of work – rather than all conceivable part‑time workers irrespective of hours.

3. Clarification of the Expression “Working Upto Four Hours”

The most significant interpretive passage is in paragraph 10, where the Bench addresses the phrase “upto four hours” appearing in the earlier wage structure:

The Court thereby lays down two clear propositions:

• The minimum qualifying threshold is actual completion of four hours of work.
• Any lesser duration – even a fraction less than four hours – does not meet the threshold for entitlement.

The Bench reinforces this by an “absurdity avoidance” argument:

Thus, the Court rejects a hyper‑literal or expansive reading that would extend the benefit to anyone who works any amount of time “within” a four‑hour window. Instead, it adopts an interpretation that:

• Respects the Government’s evident intention to link the benefit to a substantive minimum workload; and
• Prevents a manifestly unreasonable outcome where negligible work would attract the same fixed pay as a full four‑hour stint.

4. Harmonisation with the 2023 Division Bench Decision

By reaffirming that:

• Part‑time employees working less than four hours are not entitled to ₹14,800/‑ (as held in LPA No. 724 of 2023); and
• Employees working four hours or more are entitled (as clarified here),

the present Bench harmonises the scope of the Circular. It creates a coherent, two‑tier structure:

• Tier 1 (Beneficiaries): Part‑time employees working a minimum of four hours per day → Eligible for ₹14,800/‑ fixed pay;
• Tier 2 (Non‑beneficiaries): Part‑time employees working less than four hours per day → Not covered by the 16.07.2019 fixed‑pay scheme.

In doing so, the Bench adheres to the principle that a coordinate Bench’s decision is binding unless overruled by a larger Bench, while clarifying an aspect not previously addressed – i.e., treatment of exactly four-hour employees.

5. Verification of Working Hours and Administrative Burden

The Court explicitly endorses the Single Judge’s direction permitting and requiring verification of the actual working hours of the employee:

Two important consequences flow from this:

• The entitlement is conditioned on factual verification, but once the four‑hour threshold is confirmed, the employee’s right to the benefit is automatic; it is not a matter of discretion.
• The Court strikes a balance between:
  • Preventing misuse or false claims (by permitting verification), and
  • Ensuring that genuine beneficiaries are not deprived on technical or interpretive grounds.

6. Appellate Deference to Single Judge

Finally, in paragraph 12, the Division Bench records that it finds no “infirmity or illegality” in the Single Judge’s order. This is consistent with the approach that intra‑court appellate interference under Letters Patent is justified only where:

• There is a clear error of law;
• A misreading of binding precedents or statutory instruments; or
• A manifestly unjust or perverse conclusion.

Here, since the Single Judge had:

• Correctly appreciated the factual admission of four‑hour work;
• Rightly interpreted the Circular as covering four‑hour employees; and
• Aligned the relief with prior judicial guidance,

the Division Bench considered interference unwarranted and dismissed the appeal.

D. Impact and Implications

1. Clarification for Four-Hour Part-Time Employees

The most immediate impact of this judgment is that all Gujarat Government part‑time employees who can demonstrate that they are working at least four hours per day now have strong judicial backing for claiming the fixed pay of ₹14,800/‑ under the 16.07.2019 Circular.

Departments cannot deny benefits on the narrow ground that the Circular refers to “more than four hours” or by reading “upto four hours” in a manner that excludes those working exactly four hours. The threshold is now judicially clarified as:

• “Four hours or more” = Eligible;
• “Less than four hours” = Not eligible.

2. Consolidation of Law on Less-Than-Four-Hour Employees

By expressly applying and reiterating the 2023 Division Bench view, the present judgment further solidifies the position that part‑time employees working less than four hours per day are outside the coverage of the 16.07.2019 fixed‑pay scheme.

Future challenges by such employees are likely to face a significant hurdle unless a larger Bench or the Supreme Court takes a different view or the Government revises its policy.

3. Administrative and Budgetary Planning

For the State Government and its departments, this decision has concrete administrative implications:

• They must identify and verify all part‑time employees who are in fact working four hours or more per day, and extend the fixed‑pay benefits to them consistent with the judgment.
• Proper maintenance of attendance and work‑hour records becomes crucial, since entitlement is keyed to actual hours worked.
• Budgetary allocations may need to be adjusted to account for increased expenditure where departments previously denied four‑hour employees the benefit on a restrictive interpretation of the Circular.

4. Guidance on Interpretation of Beneficial Circulars

More broadly, the judgment reinforces certain interpretive principles relevant to service law and wage‑related circulars:

• Executive circulars, particularly those conferring benefits on employees, should generally be interpreted in a manner that advances their remedial purpose, provided such an interpretation does not clearly contradict the text or create absurd outcomes.
• At the same time, courts must guard against interpretations that:
  • Are based on “wrong assumptions” (as identified by the 2023 Bench); or
  • Lead to patently unreasonable results (such as granting ₹14,800/‑ to those working substantially less than four hours).

The Court’s approach in this case demonstrates a balanced interpretive method – neither unduly narrow nor unmoored from practical realities and fiscal logic.

5. Litigation Strategy in Future Cases

For both employees and departments, this judgment provides a clear template:

• Employees claiming benefits under similar circulars should:
  • Gather documentary evidence (attendance registers, duty rosters, etc.) to prove actual working hours; and
  • Frame their claims explicitly with reference to the four‑hour threshold clarified in this case.
• Departments defending such litigation must:
  • Base their defence on factual dispute over hours worked, if any, rather than disputing the applicability of the Circular to four‑hour workers per se; and
  • Accept that less‑than‑four‑hour employees are excluded but that four‑hour employees are included.

V. Complex Legal Concepts Simplified

1. Letters Patent Appeal (LPA)

A Letters Patent Appeal is an intra‑court appeal provided under the Letters Patent of certain High Courts. In simple terms:

• It allows a party aggrieved by a decision of a Single Judge of the High Court (usually in writ proceedings under Article 226) to appeal to a Division Bench (two Judges) of the same High Court.
• It is not a second appeal to a different court; rather, it is review by a larger Bench within the same High Court structure.

In this case, the departmental authorities used LPA No. 1197 of 2025 to challenge the Single Judge’s order in Special Civil Application No. 14995 of 2024.

2. Government Circular / Government Resolution

A Government Circular (often called a Government Resolution or G.R.) is an executive instruction issued by a Department (here, the Finance Department of Gujarat) that:

• Prescribes or clarifies policy;
• Sets out norms for service conditions (such as wages, allowances, benefits); and
• Binds the administrative machinery so long as it is not contrary to any statute or constitutional provision.

The 16.07.2019 Circular is such an instrument: it lays down the fixed monthly pay of ₹14,800/‑ for eligible part‑time employees, replacing earlier daily wage slabs.

3. Part-Time Employee

While the judgment does not define the term in detail, in service law a part‑time employee commonly refers to someone:

• Engaged for less than the full normal working hours of a “full‑time” post;
• Often without the complete range of service benefits and protections accorded to regular, full‑time employees; and
• Who may be paid on fixed‑pay or daily‑wage basis rather than on a full time scale of pay.

Here, the litigation concerns part‑time employees in Government offices whose hours are four hours daily or more/less, with wage entitlement keyed directly to those hours.

4. Coordinate Bench and Binding Precedent

A coordinate Bench is a Bench of the same strength (for example, a Division Bench of two Judges) of the same court. As a matter of judicial discipline:

• One coordinate Bench is generally bound by the decisions of another coordinate Bench on the same legal issue.
• If a Bench disagrees with an earlier coordinate Bench, the proper course is to refer the matter to a larger Bench (e.g., three Judges) rather than simply taking a contrary view.

In the present case, the 2025 Division Bench faithfully follows the 2023 Division Bench’s holding that less‑than‑four‑hour employees are not covered by the 16.07.2019 scheme.

5. Avoidance of Absurd Results in Interpretation

When interpreting statutory provisions or executive circulars, courts apply a common‑sense principle: an interpretation leading to a manifestly absurd or unreasonable result is to be avoided, unless clearly compelled by the text.

Here, the Court notes that reading the expression “working upto four hours” in a way that gives ₹14,800/‑ to anyone working any time within that span (even substantially less than four hours) would be absurd and contrary to the Government’s likely intention. Therefore, it interprets the phrase to require actual completion of four hours as a minimum.

VI. Conclusion

The judgment in Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. is a significant addition to Gujarat’s service law jurisprudence on the rights of part‑time government employees. It settles two important points:

1. Minimum Four-Hour Threshold: The Finance Department Circular dated 16.07.2019 entitles part‑time employees to a fixed pay of ₹14,800/‑ per month if – and only if – they actually work a minimum of four hours per day. Those working less than four hours remain outside the scheme.
2. Inclusion of Four-Hour Workers: Employees working exactly four hours are within the protected class. The benefit is not confined only to those working “more than” four hours; “four hours or more” is the operative standard.

By affirming the Single Judge’s order and clarifying the Circular’s scope, the Division Bench has:

• Ensured that genuine four‑hour part‑time workers are not wrongfully excluded from fixed‑pay benefits;
• Confirmed, through reliance on the 2023 decision, that less‑than‑four‑hour workers cannot claim the same benefit; and
• Provided clear guidance to the administration and the Bar on how to interpret and apply wage‑related Government Circulars in future cases.

In the broader legal context, the decision demonstrates a methodical approach to executive‑instrument interpretation, anchored in:

• Context (PIL 244 of 2014 and prior wage structures);
• Judicial discipline (adherence to coordinate Bench rulings); and
• Reasonableness (avoidance of absurd results).

It thus stands as a key precedent on the minimum four‑hour threshold for fixed pay of part‑time employees under the Gujarat Government’s 16.07.2019 Circular and will likely guide both policy implementation and litigation strategy in similar service matters going forward.