Gujarat High Court High Court

N vs Unknown on 6 May, 2011

Gujarat High Court
N vs Unknown on 6 May, 2011
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable J.C.Upadhyaya,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

MCA/1260/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 1260 of 2011
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16418 of 2010
 

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


 

N
V SOLANKI - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

I
P GAUTAM - COMMISSIONER & 1 - Opponent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
DP JOSHI for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
None for Opponent(s) : 1 -
2. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
		
	

 

Date
: 06/05/2011 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)

The
basis of the present petition is that the decision upon the
representation of the petitioner for payment of terminal benefit is
not taken by the Commissioner of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.

The
perusal of the document produced by the petitioner at Annexure-F
dated 24.02.2011 shows that the Corporation has credited the amount
of Rs.13,42,592/- towards terminal benefit of the petitioner. But
the grievance on the part of the petitioner is that no decision is
taken on the aspect as to whether pension should be paid or not.

In
our view, if the deposit of the amount in the account of the
petitioner as stated by him is later to the decision of the learned
Single Judge dated 29.12.2010 in Special Civil Application
No.16418/10, it will be for the petitioner to ventilate the
grievance by appropriate proceeding in the event he is aggrieved by
the decision may be of not crediting the amount of pension or not
sanctioning the amount of pension.

Under
the circumstances, as the liberty is already given to the
petitioner, we are not inclined to initiate action under the
Contempt of Court at this stage.

Disposed
of accordingly.

(JAYANT
PATEL, J.)

(J.C.

UPADHYAYA, J.)

*bjoy

   

Top