Gujarat High Court
Gajraben @ Pushpaben Wd/O Keshavlal ... vs State Of Gujarat on 15 June, 2018
Author: R.M.Chhaya
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
C/SCA/21370/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21370 of 2017
==========================================================
GAJRABEN @ PUSHPABEN WD/O KESHAVLAL CHAUHAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MAULIK H VAGHELA(7810) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
DR VENUGOPAL PATEL, AGP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date : 15/06/2018
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Maulik Vaghela, learned advocate for the petitioner, Dr. Venugopal Patel, learned AGP for respondent no.1 and Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for respondents no.2 and 3.
2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "a) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction the against the respondents herein to make payment of back wages as well as retirement benefits such as family pension etc, and/or any other consequential benefits, within stipulated time period, in the interest of justice."
Page 1 of 5 C/SCA/21370/2017 ORDER3. It is the case of the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner was working as TalaticumMantri at Sarpadad Group1, Taluka Paddhari, District Rajkot. It is further the case of the petitioner that as a complaint being CR no.I48/1986 was registered for the offence under Section 409 of the IPC before Paddhari Police Station on 9.5.1986, the late husband of the petitioner was suspended from service by an order dated 16.5.1986. The contentions raised by the petitioner also indicates that before the trial could be over, husband of the petitioner expired on 25.7.2017 and the criminal proceedings stood abated. Record further indicates that by an application dated 13.10.2017, the petitioner claimed benefits which are in form of subsistence allowance, backwages and family pension.
4. In response to the notice issued by this Court, District Development Officer, Rajkot District Panchayat has filed a detailed affidavit, wherein he has stated thus: "2. The respnt. no.3 submits that Mr. Keshavlal S. Chauhan who was born on 1.6.63 joined the service of Rajkot District Panchayat as Talati cumMantri on 21.7.78 and was later Page 2 of 5 C/SCA/21370/2017 ORDER on placed under suspension on 22.5.86 for a temporary misappropriate of an amount of Rs.5535.99 paise. It is stated that even a criminal complaint was also lodged against him. The respnt. no.3 craves leave to add that late Mr. Chauhan was required to report under Taluka Development Officer, Vankaner Taluka Panchayat and, therefore, he was relieved by Taluka Development Officer, Paddhari Taluka Panchayat pursuant to suspension order. The respnt. no.3 further submits that on the other hand though late Mr. Chauhan was placed under suspension he failed to report at Vankaner Taluka Panchayat and hand over charge to his successor and resultantly his charge was taken over unilaterally on 4.6.86 in presence of Taluka Development Officer, Paddhari and a copy of the order dated 28.5.86 is annexed as ANNEXUREA.
3. It is submitted that so far as the service record and more particularly Service Book of late Mr. Chauhan is concerned the same was forwarded to Taluka Development Officer, Vankaner by the Taluka Development Officer, Paddhari Taluka Panchayat pursuant to suspension order of late Mr. Chauhan and copies of letters between two authorities dated 9.6.86 and 5.12.88 are annexed as ANNEXUREB & C respectively. The respnt. no.3 submits that thereafter through another letter dated 21.2.91 the Service Book and other record was forwarded to Taluka Development Officer, Paddhari Taluka Panchayat by Taluka Development Officer, Vankaner Taluka Panchayat and a copy of the Page 3 of 5 C/SCA/21370/2017 ORDER letter is annexed as ANNEXURED.
4. The respnt. no.3 submits that as such Mr. Chauhan has never reported at Vankaner Taluka Panchayat pursuant to filing of criminal complaint dated 8.5.86 and suspension order dated 22.5.86 till his death on 25.7.17. The respnt. no.3 submits that it is pertinent to note that late Mr. Chauhan has never bothered for even his employment during a period of more than 30 years. It is submitted that he has never came forward for even subsistence allowance or any other benefits and a copy of his own admission of not reporting at Head Quarter after suspension order through a letter dated 16.10.08 is annexed as ANNEXUREE."
5. Upon considering the reply which is uncontroverted, the fact remains that the petitioner's late husband served only between 21.7.1978 and 22.5.1986 and during his lifetime, he has not raised any such demand. Moreover, the reply placed on record by the competent authority indicates that the husband of the petitioner failed to report at Vankaner Taluka Panchayat and even did not hand over the charge to his successor which is quite evident from the letters dated 9.6.1986 and 5.12.1988 and therefore, as far as the demand of backwages even in form of subsistence allowance is concerned, the same is totally baseless and such plea cannot be granted. As Page 4 of 5 C/SCA/21370/2017 ORDER far as the family pension is concerned, the respondent authorities are directed to process the same in accordance with law and pass an appropriate order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Such exercise shall be carried out in accordance with law as per the prevailing policy as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.
6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Notice discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J) mrp Page 5 of 5