Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10998/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10998 of 2010
WITH
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No.11020 of
2010
=========================================================
JAGDISH
N LONCHA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
APURVA R KAPADIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR NIKHILESH J SHAH for
Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 13/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Mr.
Apurva R. Kapadia, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted
that the case of the petitioner is covered by judgment dated 21st
December, 2009 passed in Special Civil Application No.9523 of 2009
and connected matters. It is submitted that the petitioner has been
appointed after following the due procedure of selection and has
completed five years of services.
That
the petitioner is eligible for regularization of his services as per
letter dated 03.05.2008 of respondents Nos.2 and 3, among others. It
is further pointed out by the learned advocate for the petitioner
that pursuant to the above-mentioned letter, respondent No.2 has
regularized the services of five employees who are similarly situated
to the petitioner, relying upon letter dated 03.05.2008. Not only
that, but the Principal Secretary, Urban Housing and Urban
Development Department has addressed letter dated 22/27.05.2008 to
respondent No.2, clearly stating that powers to regularize the
concerned employees have been conferred upon the said respondent by
the State Government. In spite of this situation, even though the
petitioner is eligible for regularization in view of letter dated
03.05.2008 of the State Government, respondents Nos.2 and 3 are not
regularizing his services, even though representation dated
03.01.2009, 30.05.2009, 06.10.2009, 12.10.2009 and 11.11.2009 have
been made by the petitioner, to respondents Nos.2 and 3.
On
16.11.2010, the learned advocate for the petitioner had made
submissions as reproduced hereinabove. However, the Court was unable
to proceed with the matter in the absence of Mr. Nikhilesh J. Shah,
learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3. The matter was directed
to be listed on 23.11.2010 and, as stated in order dated 16.11.2010
of this Court, it was expected that Mr. Nikhilesh J. Shah would make
it convenient to attend the Court and represent respondents Nos.2 and
3, on that date.
On
23.11.2010, the matter had to be adjourned yet again, as Mr. Shah did
not remain present though he was made aware of the order of this
Court. Thereafter, on 30.11.2010, on the request of Mr. Nikhilesh J.
Shah, the matter was adjourned to 13th December, 2010 in
order to enable him to file an affidavit-in-reply. The Court has
specifically noted in the said order that the affidavit-in-reply be
filed on, or before, 13th December, 2010 with an advance
copy thereof to be supplied to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, who may file an affidavit-in-rejoinder, if so desired.
Four weeks have passed since the last date of hearing. However, no
affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos.2 and
3, and neither has Mr. Nikhilesh J. Shah, the learned advocate, cared
to remain present to argue the matter on behalf of the said
respondents.
In
view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as narrated
hereinabove, the matter could have been heard and decided after
hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties. However, due
to the absence of Mr. Shah, the Court cannot proceed further in the
matter, for the third time.
The
matter may now be listed on 15.12.2010. It is made clear that on the
next date of hearing, the Court shall proceed to decide the matter,
without waiting for the learned advocate for respondents Nos.2 and 3.
(Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.)
Safir*
Top