Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/115/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 115 of 2011
=========================================================
DAVE
ARVINDABEN MANSUKHLAL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HASIT H JOSHI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR MAULIK G NANAVATI,ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 21/02/2011
ORAL ORDER
1. This
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed, with the following prayers :
“Your
Lordships be pleased to issue appropriate writ,
order or direction and be further pleased to:
(A) Admit
this petition.
(B) Direct
Respondents herein to sanction first higher grade of pay while
keeping in view the date of his joining service 22.9.1988 and grant
her 1st Higher Grade of Pay w.e.f. 22.9.1997 with all
other consequential benefits.
(C) Pending
admission, hearing ad final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships
be pleased to direct respondents to decide pending representation of
the petitioner dated 7.1.2010 and 22.4.2010 and pass appropriate
orders on her claim in interest of justice.
(D) Grant
such other and further reliefs deemed just and proper in the facts
and circumstances of this case.”
2.
Mr.Hasit H. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner is not getting higher pay scale, which has been
granted to her juniors and in spite of representations having been
made to respondent No.3, no response has been given to the petitioner
so far.
3. At
this stage, Mr.Hasit H. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner
states that the interest of justice would be met, if the petitioner
is permitted to make a fresh representation to Joint Director of
Eduction (East), Office of the Commissioner of Mid-Day Meal Scheme
and Schools (respondent No.2), who may be directed to consider and
decide the same in a time-bound manner.
4. Upon
the above statement being made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the following order is passed :
The
petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation to respondent
No.2 within a period of three weeks from today.
If
the representation is made within the stipulated period of time,
respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the same, in accordance
with law, and preferably within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of the representation.
It
is clarified that while passing this order, the Court has not entered
into the merits of the case.
The
petition is disposed of, in the above terms.
Notice
is discharged. There shall be no orders as to costs.
Direct
Service of this order is permitted.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.)
~gaurav~
Top