SCA/16154/2007 3/ 3 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16154 of 2007 ========================================================= BABULAL LALLUBHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s) Versus PRINCIPAL- KHAREDA PRIMARY SCHOOL & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR ANIL S DAVE for Petitioner(s) : 1,MS NITUBALA BHATIYA for Petitioner(s) : 1, DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. MR DHAVAL M BAROT for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 28/07/2008 ORAL ORDER
The
petitioner has been convicted for offence of murder and appeal
against the conviction is admitted by this Court but the sentence is
not suspended. In view of such fact and also considering the legal
position that admission of appeal against conviction will not create
any right in favour of the petitioner to claim reinstatement in
employment. Mr. Meena, advocate for the petitioner states that the
petitioner, at this stage and without prejudice to his contentions
against the order of termination, does not press the relief prayed
for in the petition for reinstatement. He, however, clarified that
the petitioner’s right for claiming reinstatement at a future date in
view of subsequent developments may be kept open. The request
appears to be reasonable. This order would not come in way of the
petitioner to make request for reinstatement in the event any other
development, which may entitle him to make such a request, may arise
in future. In this view of the matter, Mr. Meena, advocate for the
petitioner further submitted that appropriate directions for payment
of subsistence allowance for the period during which he was kept
under suspension by order dated 21.4.2003 until the date of his
termination may be passed.
2. Earlier,
on 4.7.2008, this Court [Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Rathod] has
already passed the order requiring the respondents to issue
appropriate orders for payment of subsistence allowance for the
period from 21.3.2003 to 5.5.2007.
3. Mr.
Meena makes the grievance that despite the order dated 4.7.2008, the
petitioner has not been paid the subsistence allowance.
4. On
perusal of the order dated 21.4.2003, it is noticed that the
authority had, while placing the petitioner under suspension, also
laid down a condition that the petitioner will be paid subsistence
allowance in accordance with Rule 151 of Bombay Civil Services Rules.
5. Thus,
even by virtue of order dated 21.4.2003, the respondent is under
obligation to pay the subsistence allowance for the period in
question to the petitioner.
6. In
view of the said position, the respondents are directed to pass
appropriate order for payment of subsistence allowance to the
petitioner for the period from 21.3.2003 to 5.5.2007 and to make the
payment accordingly on or before 4th August, 2008. In
view of the said direction and in light of the petitioner’s
clarification to the effect that at this stage the relief for
reinstatement is not pressed by petitioner, the cause of the
petition does not survive any more, however to ensure that the
directions by the order dated 4.7.2008 and repeated in this order are
complied with and compliance is reported to this Court, stand over to
5th August, 2008 for the said limited purpose only.
[
K.M. Thaker, J. ]
rmr.