Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/7241/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7241 of 2010
=========================================
JYOTISHI
MAHESHKUMAR S - Petitioner(s)
Versus
CHIEF
OFFICER & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MRS
KRISHNA G RAWAL for the Petitioner.
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :
3.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
Date
: 29/06/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioner joined respondent Nagarpalika in the year 1981. His
initial appointment was temporary and ad hoc for a period of two
months on basic salary of Rs. 490/- p.m. However, he was continued in
service. He, alongwith other employees agitated the issue of
permanency before Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot by filing Reference
(ITR) No. 350 of 1987 which came to be allowed by the Industrial
Tribunal (II), Rajkot by judgment and order dated 12.2.1997. The said
order was challenged by way of Special Civil Application No. 844 of
1999 by respondent Nagarpalika which came to be dismissed by order
dated 10.2.1999 against which Letters Patent Appeal was preferred
which also came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court
by order dated 3.11.1999 in LPA No. 353 of 1999 and allied matters.
The
petitioner’s right thus came to be crystalised latest in 1999.
Thereafter, the petitioner resigned from the service in the year 2005
by communication dated 8.12.2005, simultaneously praying for payment
of all outstanding financial benefits within three months.
2. The
petitioner has thus approached this Court with this petition making
following prayers:
“A. To
issue the writ of Certiorari/Mandamus or any other appropriate writ
order or direction directing the respondent herein to calculate and
pay the Pension and Pensionary benefits with suitable interest to the
petitioner forthwith.
B. To direct
the respondent authority to make payment of arrears of Pay of regular
employee with suitable interest.
C. Pending
hearing and final disposal of this petition the respondent authority
may kindly directed to pay provisional pension to the petitioner by
way of interim relief.”
3. It is thus
clear that the petitioner has approached this Court for the purpose
of pension and pensionary benefits which accrued to him in the year
2005. Thus, five years have gone by and the petitioner is now
approaching this Court. The petition has to fail on account of
inordinate delay.
4. An attempt
is made by the learned advocate for the petitioner to show that the
petitioner is finally denied the pension in the year 2007 wherefrom
almost three years have passed. Learned advocate for the petitioner
relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shivdas
vs. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 1330 to contend that three
years’ delay is not inordinate. As indicated earlier, right accrued
to the petitioner in the year 2005, beyond period of five years that
the applicant has not taken any action.
5. Learned
advocate relied on the decision in the case of Junagadh
Nagarpalika vs. Jethva Dilipbhai Hirabhai 2000(40 GLR
3389 to contend that if there is no sanctioned post
and if by order of the Court, an employee is sought to be
regularised, it is the duty of the Municipality to have that post
sanctioned. The said decision is not relevant for the present case.
The petition must fail on the ground of delay and latches. The
petition is dismissed.
(A.L.Dave,J)
***vcdarji
Top