Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/308620/2003 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3086 of 2003
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD Sd/-
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
Sd/-
==============================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
1
to 5 NO
==============================================
JERAMBHAI
MOHANBHAI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA & 1 - Respondent(s)
==============================================
Appearance
:
MR PH PATHAK for Petitioner(s)
: 1,
MR MUKESH A PATEL for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR RM VIN for
Respondent(s) : 2,
==============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
Date
: 22/09/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)
1. The
petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 21.02.2003 of the
Central Administrative Tribunal whereby application of the petitioner
is rejected as not maintainable. Original grievance of the petitioner
was in respect of the order dated 15.09.1984 whereby it was decided
under the provisions of Rule 2044-A(2)-R.II to treat his intervening
period from 03.06.1978 to 29.07.1982 as period not spent on duty and
to pay him 60% of the full pay and allowance to which he would have
been entitled had he not been removed from service. The grievance
against that order was based upon reading of the final orders in
Regular Civil Suit No.147 of 1975 and Regular Civil Suit No.550 of
1979 which were disposed on 01.02.1977 and 30.04.1982 respectively.
By the first judgment, the order of removal of the petitioner from
service was held to be illegal and he was held to be entitled to
recover Rs.5,648/- from the respondent as arrears of salary. And, by
the judgment and order dated 30.04.1982, it was declared that the
orders dated 03.06.1978 and 10.01.1979 of the respondent were illegal
and void and it was declared that the petitioner was in continuous
service. It was thereafter that, upon consideration of the
representation of the petitioner, the aforesaid order dated
15.09.1984 was made and, as submitted by learned counsel Mr.Pathak,
continuity of service was denied resulting into loss in pay and
pension to the petitioner.
2. The
original application of the petitioner is dismissed by the Tribunal
on the grounds of limitation and on account of being not
maintainable. It was seen from the record that, even after orders in
his favour in the civil suits filed by the petitioner in the years
1975 and 1979 and the order dated 15.09.1984 denying part of the
benefits as alleged, the petitioner did not pursue his remedies in
that regard till 1997 when he approached the Tribunal. Therefore,
obviously, the petitioner had ignored injustice, if any, for about 13
years. Even while reiterating his grievances before this Court, the
petitioner could not substantiate his argument as to how the order
dated 15.9.1984 was illegal or not in consonance with the rule
mentioned therein. As against that, learned counsel Mr.Vin, appearing
for the respondent, submitted that Rule 2044-A, which was
subsequently incorporated in Rule 1343 (F.R.54), was applicable and
it authorised the competent officer to make appropriate order with
regard to treatment of the period during which an employee was not on
duty due to dismissal or removal. He also submitted that the order of
the Civil Court declaring the service of the petitioner to be
continuous was not affected by the departmental order contained in
the memo dated 15.09.1984, which order, in any case, was not
challenged by the petitioner. Mr.Vin relied upon judgment of the
Supreme Court in Union of India v. Jaipal Singh
[2003 (9) SCALE 366] and State of
Punjab v. Buta Singh [1995 Supp (3) SCC 684.
3. In
the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any substance in
the petition or any reason to interfere with the impugned order of
the Central Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, the petition is
dismissed and Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(
Bhagwati Prasad,J.)
Sd/-
(
D.H.Waghela, J.)
(KMG
Thilake)
Top