Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/572/2011 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 572 of 2011
=========================================================
DEVYANIBEN
NAVNITRAI SHUKLA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
AS SUPEHIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR MAULIK G NANAVATI, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 20/01/2011
ORAL ORDER
1. Notice.
Mr.Maulik G. Nanavati, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives
service of Notice for respondent No.1.
2. This
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed, with the following prayers :
“This
Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any
other writ, order or direction :
A) Directing
the Respondents to apply the judgment dt.18.2.2010 passed in Special
Civil Application No.324 of 2010 in the case of the petitioner and
grant 1st higher grade scale to the petitioner from
16.10.1985 i.e. after completion of 9 years of service from the date
of appointment instead of 11.11.1993 and grant her consequential
benefits accordingly.
B) During
the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the Respondents may
be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of
higher grade scale w.e.f. 16.10.1985 in light of the judgment
dt.18.2.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No.324 of 2010.
C) To
grant such and further relief as may b e deemed fit and proper.”
3. Heard
Mr.A.S.Supehia, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted
by him that the petitioner has become entitled to the first higher
grade scale from 16.10.1985, after completion of nine years of
service as Mukhya Sevika. The departmental examination of the
petitioner under the Gujarat Public Health Service Examination Rules,
1993 was held and the petitioner cleared the same on 11.11.1993. She
was, therefore, granted 1st higher grade scale vide order
dated 25.7.2002 with effect from 11.11.1993. It is further submitted
that the name of the petitioner stands at Serial No.6 of the said
order. The petitioner is entitled to higher grade scale with effect
from 16.10.1985 i.e. after completion of nine years of service from
the date of her appointment instead of from 11.11.1993. It is further
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in similar
situations, similarly situated persons filed Special Civil
Application No.8181/1998, which was allowed by judgment dated
6.8.1999. The said judgment was subject matter of challenge in
Letters Patent Appeal No.663/2000 and the appeal filed by the
respondent department was rejected by order dated 28.1.2010 of the
Division Bench. It is further urged that the other similarly situated
persons have also filed Special Civil Application No.324/2010 and
allied matters, which have been allowed by judgment dated 18.2.2010
of the learned Single Judge. The respondents have complied with the
judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18.2.2010 by passing order
dated 30.10.2010. Hence, as the
case of the petitioner is similar, the same treatment ought to be
meted out to him.
4. At
this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that
the interest of justice would be met, if the petitioner is permitted
to make a representation to respondent No.1, within a period of two
weeks from today and the said respondent may be directed to consider
and decide the same, in the light of the judgments of this Court and
the orders, passed in the case of similarly situated persons.
5. Upon
the above statement being made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the following order is passed :
The
petitioner shall make a representation to respondent No.1, within a
period of two weeks from today. In
the event that the representation is made within the stipulated
period of time, respondent No.1 shall consider and decide the same,
in the light of the judgments of this Court in the cases of similarly
situated persons, as also order dated 30.10.2010 passed in the case
of persons, whose cases are stated to be similar to that of the
petitioner. Respondent No.1 shall take a decision, in accordance with
law, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of
one month from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The
petition is disposed of, in the above terms.
Direct
Service of this order is permitted.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.)
~gaurav~
Top