Gujarat High Court High Court

H vs State on 21 April, 2010

Gujarat High Court
H vs State on 21 April, 2010
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/9448/1998	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9448 of 1998
 

 
 
=========================================================


 

H
B MENA & 7 - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
DHIRENDRA MEHTA for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 8. 
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :
1, 
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA for Respondent(s) : 2, 
RULE SERVED BY DS
for Respondent(s) : 3, 
MR UM SHASTRI for Respondent(s) :
4, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 21/04/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

1. The
petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the office order
dated 5th November 1998 bearing No. 229 of 1998 qua the
petitioners, declaring and holding the same to be illegal.

2. On
13th November 1998 this Court passed following order
:

Rule.

Notice as to interim relief returnable by
23.11.98. In the meanwhile the operation of the
petitioners’ reversion order dt.5.11.98 at Annexure “B”
shall remain stayed qua the eight petitioners and the
petitioners shall be allowed to continue as drivers as
they were working prior to the passing of the impugned
order dt.5.11.98. Direct service is permitted.

The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks
leave to add the Government Drivers And Technical Staff
Union, Gandhinagar as a party respondent No.4 in this
Special Civil Application. The leave is granted. The
cause title may be amended accordingly. Notice of rule
may also be issued to the Union i.e. newly added

respondent
No.4.

3. It
is required to be noted that in view of the above interim order the
petitioners continued in service. The above order was passed in the
year 1998. Since the petitioners continued in all these years in
service at this stage it would not be appropriate to disturb the
said position. Therefore the present petition is disposed of
interms of the above interim order. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. Liberty to apply in case
of difficulty.

(K.S.

Jhaveri,J.)

mary//

   

Top