Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1117/2001 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1117 of 2001
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6616 of 1990
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
SHIVLAL
MANILAL PATEL - Appellant(s)
Versus
JAMNAGAR
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
AM MEHTA for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR JR NANAVATI for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date
: 17/02/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)
Heard
learned counsel for the appellant. The petitioner was retired under
Rule 5 of the “Jamnagar Municipal Servant’s Age of Compulsory
Retirement Rules” on 10.7.1987. At the time the order was
passed, the petitioner raised no objection and accepted the
retirement peacefully. In 1990 the petitioner filed writ petition and
in the writ petition he has not prayed for setting aside the order of
retirement passed on 10.7.1987. His only prayer is that he should be
granted retiral benefits . The whole tenor of the Special Civil
Application filed by the petitioner is laconic as far as the grounds
on which the order of compulsory retirement has been challenged are
concerned. That being the position, there being no justifiable
challenge to the order of compulsory retirement and the prayer for
setting aside the same, learned Single Judge did not favour the
petitioner with a favourable order because it was plain and simple
order and there was no justifiable ground raised by the petitioner
either in the Special Civil Application before learned Single Judge
or in the appeal before this Court except saying that compulsory
retirement should not have been made and he should be paid retiral
benefits. Firstly the petition was moved after three years of the
compulsory retirement order was accepted without any objection. There
are no justifiable grounds raised either in the Special Civil
Application or in the Letters Patent Appeal on which the order of
compulsory retirement can legitimately be challenged. In that view of
the matter, we do not see that the order of learned Single Judge
requires interference. There is no force in the appeal. The appeal
is, therefore, dismissed.
(BHAGWATI
PRASAD, J)
(BANKIM
N. MEHTA, J)
(pkn)
Top