Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/12556/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12556 of 2008
=========================================================
YOGINKUMAR
KRUSHNAMUKH SHUKLA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SURAT
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
NK MAJMUDAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 17/10/2008
ORAL
ORDER
By
way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed
by Municipal Commissioner, Surat dated 24/7/2007, in so far as it
does not grant the benefit of back wages and not treating
reinstatement as ‘on duty’ for all purpose.
Brief
facts of the case are that while the petitioner was serving as a
Painter in Central Zone of Municipal Corporation, Surat, by an order
dated 21/12/2002, the petitioner was held/declared to be disqualified
for service on the alleged breach of provisions of Section 59(1)(2)
of BPMC Act, 1949, without giving opportunity of being heard and
without issuing any charge sheet to the petitioner in breach of
principles of natural justice. Said order was challenged by the
petitioner by way of appeal before the Standing Committee.
Thereafter, the said order was challenged by way of petition before
this Court being Special Civil Application No.786 of 2007 and the
Appellate Authority was directed to take a decision in the appeal.
Ultimately, the Standing Committee met on 5/7./2002 and Resolution
No.1030 came to be passed by which it has been decided to reinstate
the petitioner without back wages and to treat the period between
disqualification and reinstatement to be ‘on duty’ only for the
purpose of pension and seniority. Pursuant to the aforesaid
resolution, the Municipal Commissioner passed an order dated
24/7/2007 by which the petitioner has been ordered to be reinstated
in service without back wages and the period between the
disqualification and reinstatement has been ordered to be ‘on duty’
only for the purpose of pension and seniority. After the aforesaid
resolution and order passed by the respondent authorities, the
petitioner was pursing the respondents authorities for back wages and
treating the period between disqualification and reinstatement as ‘on
duty’ for all purposes. However, the respondent authorities have not
paid any heed to the request of the petitioner. Hence, this petition
has been preferred by the petitioner.
As
a result of hearing and perusal of the record, I am of the view that
the impugned order is of the year 2007. firstly, there is a gross
delay in filing the present petition and only on this ground this
petition deserves to be dismissed. Apart from that the order in
question has been passed in consonance with the policy in question
and therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the matter.
I have also perused the impugned order and I am of the view that the
authority has considered the matter in detail and the order has been
passed in consonance with the policy. This Court cannot substitute
its decision with that of the authority who has considered policy
decision.
In
the premises aforesaid I do not find any merits in the matter. The
petition is therefore rejected.
(K.S.JHAVERI,
J.)
(ila)
Top