Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/15241/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15241 of 2010
=========================================================
LALJIBHAI
BHALABHAI RATHOD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
BANK
OF INDIA THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DM DEVNANI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 06/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
This
petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed with the following prayers:
(A) Admit
this Special Civil Application.
(B) Allow
this Special Civil Application by issuing writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ or direction by directing the Respondent bank
to continue the petitioner in service as Full-time Sepoy with all
consequential benefits.
(C) Pending
admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition be
pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to permit the petitioner
to resume his duties subject to outcome of the present petition.
(D) Grant
such other and further relief/s as being just and proper in the
interest of justice.”
The
petitioner was working as a part-time Sepoy with the respondent-Bank.
He was implicated in a criminal case regarding a dispute with his
relatives. He was arrested and thereafter released on bail, resulting
in his absence with effect from 11.10.1997 to 11.12.1997. The
petitioner was convicted in the said criminal case. However, the
order of conviction was set aside in appeal and the petitioner was
acquitted. The petitioner thereafter made representations dated
23.09.1992, 04.12.1992 and 02.11.1993 to the respondent-Bank
requesting that he may be permitted to resume duty. When the
petitioner did not receive any response to these representations, he
issued a Legal Notice on 28.08.2010, which has not yet been responded
to.
Heard
Mr.D.M.Devnani, learned advocate for the petitioner. It is submitted
by him that the interest of justice would be met, if the petitioner
is permitted to make a fresh representation to respondent
No.1, regarding resumption of his duties as part-time Sepoy and/or
full-time Sepoy, which may be decided expeditiously.
On
the above statement being made by the learned advocate for the
petitioner, the following order is passed:
The
petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation to respondent
No.1, who may consider and decide the same, in accordance with law,
as expeditiously as possible and without avoidable delay, preferably
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
The
petition is disposed of, in the above terms.
(Smt.Abhilasha
Kumari, J.)
(sunil)
Top