Gujarat High Court High Court

Rajendrakumar vs District on 16 March, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Rajendrakumar vs District on 16 March, 2010
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/7814/1994	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7814 of 1994
 

 
 
=========================================================


 

RAJENDRAKUMAR
T TRIVEDI - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

DISTRICT
JUDGE - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
BR GUPTA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MR SANJAY R GUPTA for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
LAW
OFFICER BRANCH for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR JB PARDIWALA for
Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 16/03/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

By
way of this petition the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the office order no. B/4/4/13/94 dated30.5.1994, whereby the
respondent has decided to discharge the petitioner from service.

While
admitting the matter, this Court (Coram:S.M.Soni,J.) has passed
following order :

Rule
returnable on 11.7.1994. To be heard with Special Civil Application
No. 7565 of 1994. Ad interim relief in terms of para 7(B). Direct
service permitted.

On
7.10.2008 in Special Civil Application No. 7565 of 1994, this Court
has passed following order:

3.0
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The main grievance of the
petitioners is that they are relieved from the service without
following any procedure contemplated under the service Rules and
their services were discharged on the ground of administrative
closure. On perusal of the record, it appears that this Court vide
order dated 9th March, 1995, confirmed the ad-interim
relief granted earlier and allowed petitioners to continue in
service and thereafter the petitioners were absorbed in the service
and had also been granted promotion. Further in view of the Office
Order dated 07.03.1995, it would not be proper to disturb the said
position which was prevailing since the year 1995 at this stage.
Hence, the impugned Office Order deserves to be quashed and set
aside.

4.0. In
the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned Office Order dated
30.05.1994 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. No order
as to costs.

For the reasons set out in the aforesaid judgment, and order, this
petition is allowed. The impugned Office Order dated 30.05.1994 is
quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.

[K.S.Jhaveri,J.]

*Himansu

   

Top