Gujarat High Court High Court

Premshanker vs Chief on 18 August, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Premshanker vs Chief on 18 August, 2010
Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/6842/2008	 2/ 2	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6842 of 2008
 

 
 
For
Approval and Signature:  
 
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
 
 
=========================================================

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

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 ?
		
	

 

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

 

PREMSHANKER
HARGOVINDBHAI JOSHI - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

CHIEF
OFFICER & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MRS
KRISHNA G RAWAL for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR MURALI
N DEVNANI for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR NIRAG PATHAK AGP for
Respondent(s) : 2 - 3. 
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) : 2
- 3. 
RULE NOT RECD BACK for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 18/08/2010  
 
ORAL JUDGMENT

The
petitioner was working as a Octroi Clerk with Una Municipality. Upon
his superannuation, requisite pension papers were moved by the
employer i.e. Una Municipality. As per the petitioner’s case, the
respondent-authorities in the Government i.e. respondent Nos.2 and 3
have not taken any decision on the question of entitlement or
otherwise of pension and other retiral benefits of the petitioner.
The case has been pending with them since 2006.

2. Accepting
the case of the petitioner at its face value, this petition is
disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 and/or respondent
No.3 to decide the case of the petitioner on eligibility of the
petitioner to pensionary benefits and other retiral benefits, if the
decision is not already taken. Such decision would be taken in
accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of this judgment.

3. The
petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule accordingly.

Direct
service is permitted.

(A.L.

DAVE, J.)

zgs/-

   

Top