Nareshkumar Dineshkumar Jain vs State Of Gujarat on 21 September, 2020

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Nareshkumar Dineshkumar Jain vs State Of Gujarat on 21 September, 2020

Bench: Ashutosh J. Shastri

        C/SCA/10960/2017                                       ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10960 of 2017

==========================================================
                   NARESHKUMAR DINESHKUMAR JAIN
                               Versus
                     STATE OF GUJARAT & 5 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AMIT PANCHAL with ANGESH A PANCHAL(9138) for the Petitioner(s)
No. 1

SHIVANI RAJPUROHIT(5377) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1

MS MANISHA LUVKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP with MR
BHARAT VYAS, AGP (99) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

MR SHIVANG J SHUKLA(2515) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE NOT RECD BACK(63) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3,4,5,6
==========================================================

  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI

                           Date : 21/09/2020

                             ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for claiming multiple reliefs as prayed for in paragraph 10 of the petition, which read as under :-

"In the premises aforesaid, the petitioner, therefore, prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order -

(A) Directing the respondents, their agents, servants, etc. to grant benefits of Permanency of Service, Higher Pay Scale, leave Encashment, Contributory Provident Fund, Leave Travel Concession, State Insurance, and such other benefits the service benefits to the petitioner which are being granted to similarly situated Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 27 13:47:47 IST 2021 C/SCA/10960/2017 ORDER employees and the employees of other Government Colleges appointed by the State Government on permanent basis and who are doing similar work and performing same duties, in conformity with the principle of' equal pay for equal work' as have been given to identically situated person and on the principles laid down by Honourable Supreme Court of India in the judgment dated 26.10.2016 in the case of State of Punjab versus Jagjit Singh and others in Civil Appeal No. Civil Appeal No.213 of 2013 and connected matters, and in the case of Randhir Singh versus Union of India reported in (1982) 1 SCC 618, which judgments are binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, and the judgments of this Honourable Court rendered in Special Civil Application Nos. 4269 of 2016, 4787 of 2016 to 4791 of 2016;

Special Civil Application No. 8152 of 2015 and connected matters disposed of by way of CAV common Judgments dated 07.09.2016, Special Civil Application No. 709 of 2014 confirmed by the Division bench of this Honourable Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1079 of 2014;

(B) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioner and not to alter his service condition in any manner adverse to him until all the sanctioned vacancies of teaching staff in Government Ayurveda Colleges are duly filled up by the candidates selected and recommended by GPSC in accordance with the norms of pupil~teacher ratio laid down by Central Council of Indian Medicine;

(D) Pass such other and further order or orders, as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;

(E) Award costs."

Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 27 13:47:47 IST 2021 C/SCA/10960/2017 ORDER

2. However, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it was submitted by Shri Amit Panchal, learned advocate appearing with Mr.Angesh A. Panchal for the petitioner on instructions that during the pendency of present proceeding, the petitioner has cleared the examination and selection process of G.P.S.C. and actually has been appointed in the year 2019 on a substantive post. Resultantly, has submitted that now cause does not survive. Accordingly he seeks permission to withdraw the petition.

3. To this submission, Ms.Manisha Luvkumar, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State Authority has also confirmed the fact of appointment of the petitioner in the year 2019.

4. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. Rule is discharged.

(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J) VARSHA DESAI Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 27 13:47:47 IST 2021

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court