Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/13442/2008 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13442 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
HARASORA
GITA PARSHOTTAMBHAI
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KB PUJARA for
the Petitioner
MS MANISHA NARSINGHANI, ASSTT GOVERNMENT PLEADER
for Respondent(s):1,
RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
MR ASHISH D OZA for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 21/10/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. At
the request of the learned advocate for the petitioner, the main
matter, papers of which are kept along with the Civil Application
No.12551 of 2010, is taken up for hearing.
Rule
was issued on 19.12.2008 returnable on 20.1.2009. Learned Assistant
Government Pleader Ms. Manisha Narsinghani places on record order of
appointment issued by respondent No.3 dated 19.10.2010 bearing No.
Esta/Visyo/375/2010-2011. With issuance of this appointment order,
the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed, except on one
point, i.e. the appointment order was to be given as set out in
Circular dated 3.4.2008 bearing No.Prashini/K/08/3195-3244, on or
before 20.4.2008.
1.1. Learned
advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner approached
this Court immediately, i.e. on 11.11.2008, and Rule was issued, as
referred to hereinabove, on 19.12.2008 and therefore, the order which
is issued on 19.10.2010, should be directed to be dated ‘20.4.2008’.
He candidly submitted that it will not be proper on the part of the
petitioner to insist for financial benefits from the retrospective
date, i.e. 20.4.2008, but it will be legitimate on the part of the
petitioner to ask for seniority, which is going to have everlasting
effect on her career.
2. The
submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner is found
reasonable and in light of the fact that it could not be dislodged
by the learned advocate appearing for the contesting respondents, the
petition is allowed with a direction that order dated ‘19.10.2010’ be
read as order dated ‘20.4.2008’ for all other purposes, except
actual payment of salary.
2.1. With
the aforesaid direction(s),the petition is allowed. Rule is made
absolute. No order as to costs.
2.2. Direct
service is permitted.
(RAVI
R.TRIPATHI, J.)
omkar
Top