Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Samaj Suraksha Khata Manya Swaichhik ... vs State Of Gujarat on 15 November, 2019

Author: Vikram Nath

Bench: Vikram Nath, A.J. Shastri

          C/MCA/495/2019                                       ORDER




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 495 of 2019
           In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2321 of 2004
==========================================================
SAMAJ SURAKSHA KHATA MANYA SWAICHHIK SANSTHA EMPLOYEES
                     MAHAMANDAL
                         Versus
                   STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AJ YAGNIK(1372) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR CHINTAN DAVE, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Opponent No.1
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
 CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH
        and
        HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. SHASTRI

                       Date : 15/11/2019
                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH)

1. We have heard Shri Vedant Rajguru, learned counsel for Shri A.J.Yagnik, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chintan Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State respondent.

2. Special Civil Application Nos.2321 of 2004 and 10209 of 2014 were allowed vide judgment and order dated 02.05.2017. The operative portion of the judgment as contained in paragraph­5 of the judgment is reproduced below :

"15. Hence, both the petitions are allowed. The respondent­state Government shall release adequate amount so as to meet with the responsibility of Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 30 01:06:24 IST 2019 C/MCA/495/2019 ORDER making payment to the employees of Grant­in­aid institutions (Special Civil Application No. 2321 of 2004) as well as petitioner retired employees, who worked with Kasturaba Stree Vikash Gruh, Jamnagar (Special Civil Application No. 10209 of 2014). The respondent No.4 and the respective Grant­in­aid institutions in co­ordination with Director of Social Defence shall prepare the pension papers of such employees who retired from the services, and forward the same to respondents No. 2 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter, the respondent­authorities shall release the funds to the concerned authority, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the proposal forwarded by the respondent No.4, so as to give pensionary benefits to the retired employees working with Grant­in­aid institutions. The petitioners shall co­operate with the institution in preparing the pension papers; and the respondent­ State Government authorities shall extend co­ operation and co­ordinate with the institute for expeditious payment of pensionary benefits. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent."

3. The said judgment was served upon the opposite party, but when no compliance was effected, the present Contempt Petition was filed. Initially, notices were issued on 08.05.2019 fixing 25.06.2019. The matter was again taken up on 05.08.2019, but since no compliance has been effected, the Court passed a conditional order. The same is reproduced below :

"Heard. If no decision as directed by the learned Single Judge is taken and/or the order of which contempt is alleged is not complied with within three weeks from today, appropriate order shall be passed including awarding payment of interest at appropriate rate. Stand over to 09.09.2019."

4. Today when the matter is taken up the status is the same i.e. no compliance effected.

5. Shri Chintan Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the State has chosen to prefer a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in which there was some delay and on the said application for condonation, notices have been issued on 01.10.2019. Thereafter, no further orders have been passed in the Letters Patent Appeal. Thus, the status is that as of date there is neither any competent appeal pending before this Court and therefore the judgment of the learned Single Judge deserves to be immediately complied with. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the appeal suffers from delay of more than 700 days and has apparently been preferred after the filing of the present Contempt Petition only in order to avoid compliance of the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

6. Shri Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader has prayed for two weeks' time to either obtain some protection in the Letters Patent Appeal or to ensure Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 30 01:06:24 IST 2019 C/MCA/495/2019 ORDER compliance and file an affidavit of compliance by the next date. We also note that till date no affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties despite notices having been served almost in the month of June, 2019.

7. We accordingly direct that the matter may be listed on 29.11.2019. By the said date, if no protection is provided to the opposite parties, compliance may be effected and an affidavit to that effect may be filed, failing which the opposite parties would remain present before this Court along with their respective explanations. Copy of this order be provided free of cost to Shri Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader within 24 hours for necessary compliance.

(VIKRAM NATH, CJ) (A.J. SHASTRI, J) GAURAV J THAKER Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 30 01:06:24 IST 2019