Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/475/2001 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 475 of 2001
IN
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 870 of 1991
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI Sd/-
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Sd/-
======================================
1.
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
NO
2.
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
NO
3.
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
NO
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 ?
NO
5.
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
NO
======================================
BAVAJI
MOHANBHAI KARSANBHARTI - Appellant
Versus
MALIA
HATINA GRAM PANCHAYAT & 1 - Respondents
======================================
Appearance
:
MR
MD RANA for Appellant.
MR MANOJ N POPAT for
Respondents.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 15/11/2011
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)
By
way of this Intra-Court Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant –
original petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated
03.04.2001 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Special Civil
Application No.870 of 1991 by which while dismissing the writ
petition, the Learned Single Judge by exercising suo motu power of
superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
issued the follwing directions :-
“By exercising suo motu power of
superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the
judgment and decree of the District Judge, Junagadh, in Regular
Civil Appeal No.55/82 decided on 4-4-1983 is quashed and set aside.
As a result of the quashing and setting aside of the judgment
of the learned District Judge, Junagadh in Regular Civil Appeal
No.55/82 dated 4-4-1983, the resolution of the Gram Panchayat
under which the services of the petitioner were brought to an end
is revived and the petitioner shall no more be in service
henceforth. However, whatever salary paid to the petitioner
during this period as well as the consequential benefits given to
him in pursuance of the decree of the learned District Judge,
Junagadh shall not be recoverable by the Gram Panchayat from him.
Rule is accordingly discharged. In the
facts of this case, no order as to costs.”
2. We
have heard Mr. M. D. Rana, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr. Disant Manoj Popat, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents.
3. Learned
counsel Mr. M. D. Rana has submitted that the petitioner has
approached this Court seeking direction to the respondents to grant
the petitioner pay scale as prescribed by the Pay Commission which
was already made available to the Panchayat employees of various
Panchayats. However, while dismissing the writ petition, the Learned
Single Judge exercised suo motu powers under Article 227of the
Constitution of India and quashed and set aside the judgment of
the learned District Judge, Junagadh in Regular Civil Appeal No.55/82
dated 4-4-1983 after almost 18 years, which was not the subject
matter of the writ petition. He, has, therefore, submitted that the
Learned Single Judge has travelled beyond his jurisdiction and hence,
the said direction may kindly be quashed and set aside.
4. Learned
counsel Mr. Popat has submitted that even if the observations made by
the Learned Single Judge in the last paragraph are quashed, the
petitioner is not entitled for the pay scale in view of the decision
of the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1.
5. We
have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has filed
the writ petition for the following reliefs :-
“(a) directing
the respondent to grant the prescribed pay scale prescribed by the
Pay Commissions to the petitioner which is already made available to
the Panchayat employees of the various Panchayats and the State Govt.
employees on regular establishment with arrears for the class IV post
with increments;
(b) pending
the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, to issue
interim direction to the respondent Panchayat to fix the pay scale
from the date of the petitioner on proposition of equal wage for
equal work.”
6. In
the above view of the matter, the contention raised by the appellant
regarding the last paragraph of the Learned Single Judge is required
to be accepted in as much as the judgment of the learned District
Judge, Junagadh in Regular Civil Appeal No.55/82 dated 4-4-1983 was
not the subject matter of the petition and it would not be proper for
this Court to exercise the suo-motu powers after almost 18 years.
Therefore, the observations made by the Learned Single Judge in the
last paragraph of the impugned judgment, referred to hereinabove, is
required to be quashed and set aside.
7. Accordingly,
the Letters Patent Appeal is partly allowed to the above extent. The
impugned judgment and order of the Learned Single Judge so far as it
dismissed the writ petition of the appellant is hereby confirmed.
However, the observations made by the Learned Single Judge in the
last paragraph, referred to herein above, is hereby quashed and set
aside. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Sd/-
[V. M. SAHAI, J.]
Sd/-
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.]
Savariya
Top