Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5677/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5677 of 2008
=========================================================
DEVA
HATHIYA PURI & 5 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
EE SAIYED for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 6.
DS
AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MR MEHUL H RATHOD for
Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 08/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
None
present for the petitioner.
Mr.Mehul
Rathod, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, is present.
In
this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
following main prayer is made by the petitioner :-
?S20(a) Your
Lordship may be pleased to kindly issue an order, Writ in the nature
of Mandamus and/or Certiorari or other appropriate Writ, order or
direction, declaring the impugned inaction on part of the respondents
to extend the benefits of the time scale of pay of the petitioners
after completion of 3 years of service, in light of the Division
Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Special Civil Application No.3547 of
1991 and direct the respondents to pay all arrears of salary to the
petitioners with 18% interest??,
The
petitioner has filed this petition claiming benefits on the basis of
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and directions issued by the
Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.3547 of
1991, without furnishing details about service record of the
petitioner.
In
absence of relevant material of service record of the petitioner,
prayers made in this petition cannot be accepted.
The
Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma
Devi, reported in [2006] 4 SCC 1, held that the High Court
should not issue any direction of conferring permanent benefits of
community on regular basis and wide powers under Article 226 are not
intended to be used for issuance of such direction, which is certain
to defeat concept of social justice, equal opportunity for all and
the the constitutional scheme of public employment. The Apex Court
further restricted the Courts from interfering unduly with
economic/financial arrangement of affairs of the State or its
instrumentalities and to be more careful in such issues. The Apex
Court further took note that even the phenomenon of `litigious
employment’ had arisen due to issuance of such directions by the High
Court and only because an employee had continued under cover of an
order of the High Court, even for a long period of time, no such
directions of conferring permanency can be issued and, ultimately,
the Apex Court held that wide powers under Article 226 are no
intended to be used for the purpose of perpetuating illegalities,
irregularities or improprieties.
In
view of the above discussion, this Special Civil Application fails
and is hereby dismissed at the threshold.
Notice
discharged.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.)
*pvv
Top