Gujarat High Court High Court

Mansuri vs Chief on 27 December, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Mansuri vs Chief on 27 December, 2010
Author: D.H.Waghela,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice J.C.Upadhyaya,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

LPA/2328/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 2328 of 2010
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7520 of 2010
 

With


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 2329 of 2010
 

In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8131 of 2010
 

To


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 2333 of 2010 

 

In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8122 of 2010
 

With


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 2335 of 2010
 

In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8123 of 2010
 

To


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 2337 of 2010 

 

In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8127 of 2010
 

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

 

MANSURI
S BARMAL - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

CHIEF
OFFICER & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

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

 

 
Appearance
: 
MR
AR THACKER for
Appellant(s) : 1, 
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3. 
NANAVATY ADVOCATES for Respondent(s) : 1, 
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3. 
=========================================================



	 
		  
		 
		  
			 
				 

CORAM
				: 
				
			
			 
				 

HONOURABLE
				MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
			
		
		 
			 
			 
				 

and
			
		
		 
			 
			 
				 

HONOURABLE
				MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
			
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 27/12/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)

S.O.

to 29.12.2010 at the request of Mr.Buch , who is
required to see that an officer concerned of the Municipality remains
personally present with all the relevant record, including the
pension scheme applicable to the employees, the amounts refunded by
the parties before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) Nos.13506-13510 of
2007 and the dates from which pension, if any, is paid to those
employees, with or without retrospective effect. It is specifically
put to learned counsel Mr.Buch to explain as to why the statement
which was made before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid
S.L.P. in respect of five employees concerned therein could not be
made in respect of the appellants herein.

Sd/-

(
D.H.Waghela, J.)

Sd/-

(J.C.Upadhyaya,J.)

(KMG
Thilake)

   

Top