Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/13547/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13547 of 2010
======================================
PRAVINSINH
CHANUBHA SARVAIYA - Petitioner
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondents
======================================
Appearance :
MR
MA BUKHARI for the Petitioner.
MS MONALI BHATT, AGP for Respondent
No.1.
None for Respondent Nos.2 -
3.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 14/10/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
prayer in the petition is to issue appropriate writ, order and/or
direction, directing the respondent to consider request of the
petitioner for “continuity of service” from 1985-86.
However, considering the order dated 21/11/2005 passed by learned
Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.8166 of 2003, by which,
learned Single Judge modified the judgement and award passed by the
Labour Court, it appears that the learned Single Judge has
specifically held that the respondent shall grant the benefit of
continuity of service from the date of the award i.e. 31/07/2002.
Under the circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner
as prayed for in the present petition. If the petitioner is aggrieved
by the order of the leaned Single Judge and/or is of the view that
there is some mistake while passing the final operative portion of
the order, the petitioner can approach the learned Single Judge for
modification and/or clarification of the order passed in Special
Civil Application No.8166 of 2003. However, so far as the present
petition is concerned, so long as order of learned Single Judge
stands, which provides for continuity of service from the date of
award, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as prayed for in
the present petition. If the petitioner so chooses, he can approach
the learned Single Judge for modification and/or clarification of the
order passed in Special Civil Application No.8166 of 2003.
2. At
this stage, Mr.Bukhari, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner does not press the present petition reserving liberty in
favour of the petitioner to prefer an appropriate application before
learned Single Judge for modification and/or clarification of the
order dated 21/11/2005 passed in Special Civil Application No.8166 of
2003.
3. Under
the circumstances, the present petition is dismissed as not pressed
with above liberty. No costs.
[M.R.SHAH,J]
*dipti
Top