Gujarat High Court High Court

Ratanben vs General on 1 August, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Ratanben vs General on 1 August, 2011
Author: V. M. G.B.Shah,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/3813/2003	 2/ 2	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3813 of 2003
 

 
 
For
Approval and Signature:  
 
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI  
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
 
 
=========================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

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 ?
		
	

 

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


 

RATANBEN
DAHYABHAI CHAUHAN - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

GENERAL
MANAGER & 4 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
DP VORA for the Petitioner. 
MR MUKESH A PATEL for the
Respondents. 
========================================= 

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 01/08/2011 

 

 
 
				ORAL
JUDGMENT

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI

1. We
have heard Mr.D.P.Vora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
and Mr.Mukesh A.Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The
employee Mr.Dahyabhai Chauhan died in the year 1980. His widow
claimed family pension. However, she has also died in the year 2006.
The heirs have been substituted in this petition. A preliminary
objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents
that remedy of the petitioners lay before Central Administrative
Tribunal as the deceased employee was working with Western Railway.
In this view of the matter, this petition is dismissed on the ground
of alternative remedy before Central Administrative Tribunal. Notice
is discharged.

(V.M.SAHAI,J)

(G.B.SAHAI,J)

***vcdarji

   

Top