Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/1769/2009 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR DIRECTION No. 1769 of 2009
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 21381 of 2005
=========================================================
CHANDRAKANT
HIRALAL SHAH - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 5 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MURALI N DEVNANI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS SACHI MATHUR, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 6.
MR
HARIN P RAVAL for Respondent(s) : 4 -
5.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 30/06/2009
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
Civil Application is filed by the applicant, original petitioner of
Special Civil Application No. 21381 of 2005. The original petition
being Special Civil Application No.21381 of 2005 was filed for
enforcing the Recovery Certificate which was issued, at the relevant
time,on
the recovery application filed by the applicant. The employer has in
fact, filed Special Civil Application No.12886 of 2004 inter alia
challenging the award dated 6.4.2004 passed in Reference Demand Case
No.6 of 1997.
2. It
is pertinent to note at this stage that these recovery applications
whereon certificates were issued were based upon the award dated
6.4.2004 passed in Reference Demand Case No.6 of 1997. Thus, the
petition was filed wherein this Court (Coram:Ravi
R.Tripathi,J.)passed an order on 5.10.2004, inter alia directing the
petitioner therein to accord similar treatment which came to be
accorded to two juniors to the applicant, at the relevant time.
Subsequently, it came to be modified on 3.11.2004, whereunder lumpsum
payment of Rs.25,000/- was made, which Shri Murli Devnani, submits
that it is complied with. Thereafter an exercise was undertaken
whereunder, the junior’s grade which was found to be of the applicant
was granted similar treatment vide order dated 31.5.2005, which is
produced at page 174 of the compilation. Thus, it was in compliance
there with the order passed by this Court. It is pertinent to note
that while passing the order dated 5.10.2004, the Court granted stay
in terms of para 20(B) of the petition which amounted to staying the
implementation,execution and operation of the original award based
whereupon the Recovery Certificates were issued. It is required to be
noted that before issuing the order dated 31.5.2005 produced at page
174 of the compilation under appropriate exercise, two juniors were
brought at par, given the scale, it was admissible to them legally
and the same scale was given to the applicant as could be seen from
page 174 of the compilation. Thus the order dated 31.5.2005 was
issued in favour of those two juniors also. Persons who were affected
because of this exercise, namely, the juniors filed writ petition
being Special Civil Application Nos. 12049 of 2005, 12061 of 2005 and
14237 of 2005, which came to be disposed of with a direction to hear
the petitioners therein, meaning thereby, those juniors and
ultimately after hearing the same, the order was passed on 1.8.2007,
which is produced at page 176 of the compilation. This order was
challenged vide Special Civil Application Nos.21620 of 2007,21621 of
2007 and 21633 of 2007, wherein this Court vide order dated 22.8.2007
relegated the petitioners for making representation to the Additional
Chief Secretary in respect of their grievances made in the petition
and thus, the petitions were disposed of. As a result thereof, the
petitioners therein made representation and the same culminated into
order dated 30.1.2008 passed by the Secretary,Panchayat, Rural
Housing and Rural Development Department, Gandhinagar, effect
whereof, has not effectively changed the preposition of the applicant
and those two juniors. This order dated 30.1.2008 is a subject matter
of some objection but Shri Murli pleads ignorance on any such order
operating against them.
3. Shri
Raval, learned advocate for respondents No.4 and 5 submitted that
exactly same treatment is accorded juniors to the present applicant
as it is envisaged and directed by this Court vide order dated
5.10.2004 in Special Civil Application No. no.12886 of 2004.
Therefore, the said Special Civil Application is absolutely
misconceived.
4. Shri
Raval submits that he has received communication dated 8.6.2009
indicating that the order dated 30.1.2008 has been implemented.
5. In
view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that Civil
Application being bereft of any merits is required to be dismissed
and the same is dismissed accordingly. The Court is restraining from
awarding cost in view of the fact that the workman is clamoring for
his dues for quiet some time.
(S.R.Brahmbhatt,
J.)
sudhir
Top