Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1042520/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10425 of 2008
=========================================================
CHANDUBHAI
HARIBHAI VAGHELA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MB GOHIL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS KRINA CALLA, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 23/10/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
learned counsel for the parties.
2. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to direct the
respondents to grant revised pay scale benefits of Rs. 1150-1500 to
the petitioner from 1986 onwards.
3. The
petitioner was appointed in the year 1964 as Peon in the respondent
no.2 department. During the course of his service, his post was also
converted from Peon to Operation Theatre Assistant. It is the case
of the petitioner that for receiving higher pay scale, the present
petitioner, a number of times, made several representations but the
same was not considered by the authority on the ground that the
petitioner has not cleared SSC examination. Being aggrieved by the
behaviour of the respondents, the present petition has been
preferred.
4. Mr.
Gohil, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner relies upon resolution dated 06.06.2000 and
07.11.2001 which clearly indicates that the State Government has
given relaxation in qualification of SSC Examination to those
employees serving in class III cadre appointed prior to the 1975. He
has further submitted that a similarly situated person had preferred
Special Civil Application No. 2325 of 1994 which was allowed by this
Court.
5. Ms.
Calla, learned AGP appearing for the respondent authorities has
supported the stand of the respondent authorities and has submitted
that this petition is not maintainable as at the first place itself
there is an inordinate delay by the petitioner in preferring this
writ petition. She has submitted that the petitioner is claiming the
benefits of the year 1986 in the year 2008 and the same should not be
entertained by this court in view of the decision of the Apex Court
in the case of Shiv Dass vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in
AIR 2007 SC 1330. She
has submitted that the order does not call for any interference from
this court.
6. This
Court has perused the documents placed on record by both the sides.
As a result of hearing and perusal of records, it is clear that the
petitioner had joined the services under respondent no.2 in the year
1964. However, the petitioner has approached this court in the year
2008 for claiming benefits of the year 1986 onwards i.e. after a
period of almost 22 years. In this regard, it will be relevant to
peruse decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Dass (supra)
wherein the Apex Court relying upon
the decision reported in AIR 1987 SC 251 has upheld the view that if
there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such
delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to
intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It
was stated that this rule is premised on a number of factors. The
High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the
extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and
public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices, and if
writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay it may have
the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also
injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ
jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation
of third party rights in the meantime is an important factor which
also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to
exercise such jurisdiction.
7. In
view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant the prayers
prayed for in the present petition at such a belated stage. No
interference is caused in the present petition and the same requires
to be dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, petition stands
dismissed. No order as to costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.)
Divya//
Top