Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/12756/2011 7/ 7 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12756 of 2011
=========================================================
CHANDRAKANT
MOHANLAL PATEL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT 3~ & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HARDIK C RAWAL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MRS MH RAWAL for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR AL
SHARMA, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 30/08/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
learned advocate Mr. Hardik C. Rawal appearing for petitioner and
learned AGP Mr. A. L. Sharma appearing for respondent no.1.
2. The
prayer made by petitioner in para 8(A) to 8(C) are quoted as under:
“8(A) be
pleased to allow this petition.
8(B)
be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction by directing the respondents to apply;
the
judgement dated 29-7-2003 in Special Civil Application N.10772 of
2003 (Annexure-A)
judgement
dated 18-2-2010 in Special Civil Application No.324 of 2010 and
other cognate matters (Annexure-B)
Special
Civil Application No.8181 of 1998 dated 6-8-1999 (Annexure-C)
Oral
order dated 28-1-2010 in Letters Patent Appeal No.663 of 2000 to 665
of 2000 (Annexure-D)
in
the case of petitioner and grant the benefit of first higher grade
scale (Rs.1,400-2,600) with effect from 3-7-1992 i.e. the date on
which the petitioner completed 9 year services on the post of senior
clerk instead of 29-3-1997 and grant all the consequential and
identical benefits including the second higher pay scale
and/or
further
be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 24-3-2008
passed by the respondent no.2 (Annexure-E) by which the
representation of the petitioner is rejected.
8(C) pending
admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to
direct the respondents to reconsider the case of petitioner for grant
of first higher pay scale (Rs.1,400-2,600) with effect from 3-7-1992
i.e. the date on which the petitioner completed 9 year services on
the post of senior clerk instead of 29-3-1997 and grant all the
consequential and identical benefits including the second higher pay
scale in light of judicial pronouncements at Annexure-A, B, C and D.”
3. The
representation which has been made by petitioner dated 30/03/2010 is
not decided so far by respondent no.2. Learned advocate Mr. Raval
relied upon one order which has been passed by this Court on
29/12/2010 in case having identical facts and circumstances i.e. in
Special Civil Application No.16794 of 2010. The said order is quoted
as under:
“1. This
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed, with the following prayers :
“A) Directing
the Respondents to apply the judgment dt.6.8.1999 passed in Special
Civil Application No.8181 of 1998 and judgment dt.18.2.2010 passed in
Special Civil Application No.324 of 2010 in the case of the
petitioner and grant 1st higher grade scale to the
petitioner from 12.1.1990 i.e. after completion of 9 years of service
from the date of appointment instead of 28.2.1995 and grant her
consequential benefits an further revise her retirement benefits
accordingly.
B) During
the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the Respondents may
be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of
higher grade scale w.e.f. 12.1.1990 in light of the judgment
dt.18.2.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No.324 of 2010 and
judgment dt.6.8.1999 passed in Special Civil Application No.8181 of
1998.
C) To
grant such and further relief as may b e deemed fit and proper.”
2. Heard
Mr.A.S.Supehia, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted
by him that the petitioner has become entitled to the first higher
grade scale from 12.1.1990, after completion of nine years of service
as Mukhya Sevika. By order dated 9.2.2005 passed by respondent No.1,
the petitioner has been granted the higher grade scale from
28.2.1995, that is, from the date of passing the departmental
examination, instead of granting it with effect from 12.1.1990. It is
further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in
similar situations, similarly situated persons filed Special Civil
Application No.8181/1998, which was allowed by judgment dated
6.8.1999. The said judgment was subject matter of challenge in
Letters Patent Appeal No.663/2000 and the appeal filed by the
respondent department was rejected by order dated 28.1.2010 of the
Division Bench. It is further urged that the other similarly situated
persons have also filed Special Civil Application No.324/2010 and
allied matters, which have been allowed by judgment dated 18.2.2010
of the learned Single Judge. The respondents have complied with the
judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18.2.2010 by passing order
dated 30.10.2010. Hence, as the
case of the petitioner is similar, the same treatment ought to be
meted out to him.
3. At
this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that
the interest of justice would be met, if the petitioner is permitted
to make a representation to respondent No.1, within a period of two
weeks from today and the said respondent may be directed to consider
and decide the same, in the light of the judgments of this Court and
the orders, passed in the case of similarly situated persons.
4. Upon
the above statement being made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the following order is passed :
The
petitioner shall make a representation to respondent No.1, within a
period of two weeks from today. In the
event that the representation is made within the stipulated period of
time, respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the same, in the
light of the judgments of this Court in the cases of similarly
situated persons, as also order dated 30.10.2010 passed in the case
of persons, whose cases are stated to be similar to that of the
petitioner. Respondent No.1 shall take a decision, in accordance with
law, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of
one month from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The
petition is disposed of, in the above terms.”
4. In
view of above observations made by this Court, it is directed to
respondent no.2 to consider representation made by petitioner and
also consider decision which has been refereed above and other
decisions on identical issue decided by this Court on 29/7/2003 in
Special Civil Application No.10772 of 2003 and in group of Special
Civil Application Nos.324 of 2010 and others dated 18/2/2010 and in
Special Civil Application No.8181 of 1991 dated 6/8/1999 and other
relevant decisions in respect to the same matters passed by Division
Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.663 of 2000 to 665 of
2000 dated 28/1/2010 and then reconsider and reexamine the case of
petitioner considering aforesaid decisions which has been referred by
this Court and then pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance
with law within a period of three months from receiving copy of
present order and communicate decision immediately to petitioner.
5. In
view of above observations and directions, present petition is
disposed of by this Court without expressing any opinion on merits.
Direct service is permitted.
(H.K.RATHOD,
J.)
(ila)
Top