Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/7680/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7680 of 2011
=========================================================
REKHABEN
G PATEL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
AS SUPEHIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR.MAULIK G. NANAVATI, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
for Respondent(s): 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 23/06/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed with the following prayers:-
“10) The
petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction:
A) Directing
the Respondents to apply the judgment dt. 18.2.2010 passed in Special
Civil Application No.324 of 2010 and judgment dated 6.8.1999 passed
in Special Civil Application no.8181 of 1998 in the case of the
petitioner and grant 1st higher grade scale to the
petitioner from 21.1.1986 i.e after completion of 9 years of service
from the date of appointment with consequential benefits and revise
her retirement benefits.
B) During
the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the Respondents may
be directed to grant the higher grade scale to the petitioner w.e.f.
21.1.1986 in light of the judgment dt.18.2.2010 passed in Special
Civil Application No.324 of 2010 and judgment dt. 6.8.1999 in Special
Civil Application no.8181 of 1998.
C) To
grant such and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper.”
2. Heard
Mr. A.S. Supehia, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted
by him that the petitioner has become entitled to the first higher
grade scale with effect from 21.1.1986 i.e. after completion of nine
years of service as Mukhya Sevika. However, no higher grade scale has
been granted to the petitioner though she has been promoted as Child
Development Officer, vide order dated 21.5.1999. It is further
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in similar
situations, similarly situated persons filed Special Civil
Application No.8181/1998, which was allowed by judgment dated
6.8.1999. The said judgment was subject matter of challenge in
Letters Patent Appeal No.663/2000 and the appeal filed by the
respondent department was rejected by order dated 28.1.2010 of the
Division Bench.
It is further urged that the other similarly situated persons have
also filed Special Civil Application No.324/2010 and allied matters,
which have been allowed by judgment dated 18.2.2010 of the learned
Single Judge. The respondents have complied with the judgment of the
learned Single Judge dated 18.2.2010 by passing order dated
30.10.2010. Hence,
as the case of the petitioner is similar, the same treatment ought to
be meted out to her.
3. At
this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that
the interest of justice would be met, if the petitioner is permitted
to make a representation to respondent No.1, within a period of two
weeks from today and the said respondent may be directed to consider
and decide the same, in the light of the judgments of this Court and
the orders, passed in the case of similarly situated persons.
4. Upon
the above statement being made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the following order is passed :
The
petitioner shall make a representation to respondent No.1, within a
period of two weeks from today. In the
event that the representation is made within the stipulated period of
time, respondent No.1 shall consider and decide the same, in the
light of the judgments of this Court in the cases of similarly
situated persons, as also order dated 30.10.2010 passed in the case
of persons, whose cases are stated to be similar to that of the
petitioner. Respondent No.1 shall take a decision, in accordance with
law, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of
one month from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The
petition is disposed of, in the above terms.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.)
Safir*
Top