Posted On by &filed under Gujarat High Court, High Court.


Gujarat High Court
Vasava vs State on 28 January, 2010
Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&Nbsp;Honourable Bankim.N.Mehta,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

LPA/1341/2009	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1341 of 2009
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 20587 of 2007
 

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

 

VASAVA
BHAKTIBHAI LALJIBHAI - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
VITTHALBHAI PATEL for
Appellant(s) : 1, 
MR. PRANAV DAVE, AGP, for Respondent  No. 1 
RULE
SERVED for Respondent No.  4. 
MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent Nos.  2
& 3. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 28/01/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)

Heard
learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, there is neither any
appointment order of the appellant nor any Rule which says that his
services were ever regularized and put him on the regular
establishment. The very basic fact is that there is no order of
appointment putting the appellant on the regular establishment of
the respondent Gram Panchayat, though he placed reliance on a
Resolution for appointing him and there is a general Resolution of
regular services of those employees who were appointed in a
particular period. None of these things culminated into a valid
appointment order in favour
of the appellant-petitioner because neither there is any order of
appointment or regularisation in favour of the petitioner produced or
existing. In that view of the matter, the appellant’s case for
pension cannot be countenanced. We do not see any illegality in the
order of learned Single Judge in not favouring the appellant with
favourable order. No substance in the appeal. Hence the appeal is
dismissed.

(BHAGWATI PRASAD, J)

(BANKIM N. MEHTA, J)

(pkn)

   

Top


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

10 queries in 0.416 seconds.