Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1159/2009 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1159 of 2009
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 22491 of 2007
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Appellant(s)
Versus
VASAVA
RAMILABEN HARILAL @ VASAVA RAMANIBEN HARILAL - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
Mr. N
.J.Shah, Assistant GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Appellants.
MR NK MAJMUDAR for the
Respondent.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 12/05/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. We
have heard Mr.N.J.Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
appellants. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the
judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 3rd September, 2007 passed
in Special Civil Application No. 22491 of 2007. The learned Single
Judge in paragraphs 10 and 11 of his judgment has issued the
following directions:
“10.
In view of this background, it is directed to the respondents to
reconsider case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on
the basis of policy dated 10th March, 2000/7th September, 2002 which
was prevailing at the relevant time when father of the petitioner
expired and also to consider the aforesaid two decisions of the Apex
Court and then to pass appropriate reasoned orders in accordance with
law within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this
order and to communicate their decision to the petitioner immediately
thereafter.
11.
With these observations and directions, this petition is disposed of
at this stage without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter
and with a liberty in favour of the petitioner to challenge the
orders that may be made by respondents before the appropriate forum
in accordance with law if the same are adverse to the petitioner
Direct service is permitted.”
2. Since
only direction has been issued to the respondents to examine
grievances of the petitioner and for considering the claim of the
petitioner for compassionate appointment, we are not inclined to
interfere with the matter at this stage. We do not find any
merit in this Letters Patent Appeal. This Appeal fails and is
accordingly dismissed.
(V.M.Sahai,J)
(G.B.Shah,J)
***vcdarji
Top