Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4357/2000 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4357 of 2000
=========================================================
NUTAN
BHARTI GRAM VIDYAPITH - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GOVERNMENT
OF GJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
JD AJMERA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
TANNA
ASSOCIATES for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 12/05/2010
ORAL
ORDER
When the matter was heard in order to resolve the dispute, a
suggestion was put to the learned Counsel for the petitioner to pay
an end to the matter by paying 50% of back wages from the date of
dismissal till the date of superannuation. This suggestion was not
accepted.
However
endeavor is made on the part of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the Respondent no.1 should come without back wages
which was declined by the learned counsel for the Respondent no. 1 .
Learned
counsel for the respondent states that it was left to the Court to
make payment to 0% to any percentage. Which was not acceptable to the
learned counsel for the petitioner or the management.
However,
this Court on 22nd January 2004, has passed an order.
Which reads as under :-
Heard learned advocates Mr. Ajmera, Mr. Kerial and learned AGP,
Mr. Pancholi. There is a consensus amongst the learned advocates
that the matter requires to be heard expeditiously in view of
the fact that respondent is out of service. Learned
advocate Mr. Ajmera presses for interim relief. Learned advocate
Mr. Kerial states that the respondent employee shall not press
for execution of the order impugned herein.
In view of the above consensus and in view of the Roster of
business, matter will have to be placed before the Bench taking
up Final Hearing and it would be open for the parties to move that
Bench for an expedited hearing. The statement made by learned
advocate, Mr. Kerial shall stand good till the final disposal of
the petition. However, liberty is reserved to
respondent-employee to withdraw the statement.
In
that view of matter, prima facie I am of the view that the petitioner
is left without salary and deprived of his legitimate rights, inspite
of order of state government pending this petition for 10 years.
S.O.
to 13th May 2010.
[K.S.Jhaveri,J.]
*Himansu
Top