Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/16977/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR STAY No. 16977 of 2010
In
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 3075 of 2010
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10610 of 1994
=========================================================
DISTRICT
PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER & 3 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
KESHAVLAL
K PRAJAPATI - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HS MUNSHAW for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 4.
MR KB PUJARA for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 24/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
Heard
Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr.K.B.Pujara,learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Rule
returnable on 17.3.2011. Mr.K.B.Pujara, learned counsel waives
service of Rule on behalf of respondent.
3. Mr.Pujara,
learned counsel for the respondent prays for time to file
affidavit-in-reply. Three weeks’ time is granted.
4. Ms.Sejal
Mandavia, learned counsel states that her matter being Letters Patent
Appeal No. 1408 of 2010 is wrongly tagged with Letters Patent Appeal
No.3075 of 2010. The matter is de-linked and shall be listed
separately.
5. The
application dated 1.11.1987, which, according to the respondent was
an application for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (‘VRS’ for short)
which was not accepted. The second application dated 15.12.1987 is
an application where the respondent states that he was to voluntarily
retire, but with effect from 30.11.1991, after four years. Learned
counsel for the appellant has urged that none of these applications
has reached the applicant/ appellant, but when his the application
was given on 1.11.1987, at that time, the respondent was in USA.
Further, in what manner these applications have been sent is not
disclosed. There is no application by the respondent even after
returning from USA. Therefore, prima facie, the appellant had not
denied VRS deliberately to the respondent and terminated the services
of the respondent. Prima facie, we are of the opinion that the
learned Single Judge has not examined the matter regarding the
findings on record. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to interim
relief.
6. Until
further orders, the effect of the operation, implementation and
execution of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.10.2010
in Special Civil Application No. 10610 of 1994 shall remained stayed.
(V.M.Sahai,
J.)
Sreeram. (G.B.Shah,
J.)
Top