Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/2455/1983 2/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2455 of 1983
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
BHANJI
JAMNADAS HARIJAN - Petitioner(s)
Versus
KANDLA
PORT TRUST & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
PRANAV G DESAI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MR
DHAVAL D VYAS for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 16/04/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
By
way of this petition the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the order dated 30.4.1983 passed by the respondents and
further to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with
full back wages.
The
brief facts of the case are as under :-
2.1
As per the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed as Apprentice
Engineer with the respondents in February 1976. He was given an
appointment as a sub-engineer from 9.2.1977. The said appointment
of the petitioner was temporary with probation period of two years.
2.2
On 22.12.1982, the Chief Engineer of the Kandla Port Trust, had
issued an order purporting to terminate the petitioner’s service
under Regulation 5. Along with the said order a cheque for Rs.
1,144.50 for the notice period pay was also given. Hence this
petition.
Heard
learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the
documents on record.
From
the record it revealed that , in the appointment order, it has been
stated that the appointment may be terminated at any time by one
month’s notice given by either side viz. appointee or the
appointing authority without assigning any reasons. The appointing
authority, has right of terminating the services of the appointee
forthwith on before the expiration of the stipulated period of
notice by making payment to him of a sum equivalent to the pay and
allowances for the period of notice. In that view of the matter, the
view taken by the authority is just and proper. No case is made out
to interference. Hence petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged
with no order as to costs.
[K.S.Jhaveri,J.]
*Himansu
Top