Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5894/1987 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5894 of 1987
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
M.T.PICHADIA,
CO OPERATIVE OFFICER (LIQUIDATION) & 14 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
SHALIN MEHTA FOR M/S NJ MEHTA ASSO.
for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3,5
- 7,9 - 14.NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for Petitioner(s) : 4, 8,- for
Petitioner(s) : 0.0.0
MR NJ SHAH AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 06/09/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following
reliefs;
“(a) declaring
the Rules framed by the Government of Gujarat vide Government
Resolution dated 14.09.1967, Annexure ‘D’ hereto, ultra vires
Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and null and void;
(b) directing
the respondent-authorities to treat the petitioners as exempted from
passing the GDCA examination on their attaining the age of 45 years
and to extend to them all consequential benefits like regularization
in their present grade, viz. 425-800 (pre-revised) seniority,
promotion, etc.
(c) directing
the respondent-authorities to treat the petitioners as promoted to
the higher posts with effect from the dates when they became eligible
to be considered for promotion to the higher posts on the basis that
they had exempted on their attaining the age of 45 years from passing
the GDCA examination and extend all consequential benefits like
deemed date of promotion, deemed date of seniority, arrears of
salary, etc.
(d) restraining
the respondent-authorities from reverting the petitioners from their
present posts, viz. in the grade of Rs.425-800 (pre-revised).”
(e) …….
2. The
issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by a decision of
this Court passed in L.P.A. No.2025 of 2004 dated 08.08.2005 and
L.P.A. No.1131 of 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that in view of the decisions rendered in the above matters, benefits
given to the petitioners pursuant to the interim order of this Court,
may not be recovered and pension may be re-fixed on the basis of the
reverted post.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties. We have gone through the
decisions relied upon by learned counsel Mr. S.N. Mehta for the
petitioners.
4. In
the
result,
the petition is allowed in terms
of order dated 08.08.2005 passed in Letters Patent
Appeal No.2025/2004 with the direction that the detailed reasons
recorded in that order shall be read as part of this order. However,
it is clarified that if the petitioners are found entitled to
fixation of pay on the post of Senior
Clerk or equivalent post,
in terms of Resolutions
dated 05.07.1991 and 16.08.1994, then such benefit should be extended
to them notwithstanding the fact
that Special Civil
Application
filed by them against
the reversion have been dismissed. The petitioners may represent
to the competent authority for
grant of benefit
in terms
of Government Resolutions dated 05.07.1991 and 16.08.1994 and also
for grant of consequential
retiral benefits. It is hoped that any
such representation
made by any of the petitioners would receive appropriate
attention at the hands of the competent authority
and decided within a maximum period
of three months.
5. With
the above observations, the petition stands disposed of. Rule is made
absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.
[V.M.
SAHAI, J.]
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top