Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/13351/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13351 of 2010
=========================================================
PREMSHILABEN
RADHESHYAM RAMI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DP VORA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR MAULIK NANAVATY AGP for Respondent(s) :
1,
MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 12/07/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
learned advocate Mr.D.P.Vora for petitioner, learned AGP Mr.Maulik
Nanavati for respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr.Munshaw for
respondent No.2.
1.1 In
this matter, affidavit-in-reply is filed by respondent No.1 which is
at Page-59.
2. Learned
AGP Mr.Maulik Nanavati submitted that whatever dues required to be
paid by respondents, same has been paid by respondent No.1 to the
petitioner. For that, specific averment made in Para.3 and 4 of
affidavit-in-reply (page-60), is quoted as under :
“3. I
say that following the decision of this Hon’ble Court in the case of
Prabhudas R. Nimavat v. State of Gujarat – SCA No.1696/1996 and
the subsequent decision in case of Jani Popatlal Vasanji v. State of
Gujarat & Ors. – SCA No.6992/2002, the Government has decided to
count the entire length of service of the husband of the petitioner
from the date of his initial appointment in Sarvodaya Scheme till his
death for the purpose of calculating pension. Thus, it has been
decided to grant pension tot he petitioner counting the service of
her husband from 1.2.1080.
4. I
say that it has also been decided to grant pay and allowances to the
petitioner for the period between 1.9.1981 i.e. the date on which the
husband of the petitioner was absorbed in the ex-cadre post under the
Panchayat as peon. The prayer of the petitioner for grant of pay and
allowances from the date her husband was appointed in Sarvodaya
Scheme has been rejected as such prayer is not in consonance with the
declared policy of the Government.”
3. In
view of aforesaid averments made in affidavit-in-reply, learned
advocate Mr.Vora appearing on behalf of petitioner is not disputing
such payments made by respondents to petitioner. But he wants details
of break up from respondents.
4. Therefore,
it is directed to respondent No.2 to give break up details to
petitioner in respect to whatever payments made by respondents to
petitioner. Therefore, let DDO may supply such details to petitioner
within a period of one month from date of receiving copy of present
order. Thereafter, let that break up is to be examined or considered
by petitioner and in spite of that, if any amount still remain due
against respondents, for that it is open for petitioner to make
further representation to respondents.
5. In
view of above observations and directions, present petition is
disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits.
[
H.K.RATHOD, J. ]
(vipul)
Top