Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Malatiben vs Union on 1 September, 2008

Author: K.M.Thaker

Bench: K.M.Thaker

  
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	

 
 


	 

MCA/2378/2007	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR DIRECTION No. 2378 of 2007
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 942 of 2000
 

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

 

MALATIBEN
WD/O SURESHBHAI S CHILE - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

UNION
OF INDIA & 3 - Opponent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
YV SHAH for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
NOTICE SERVED for Opponent(s) : 1 - 4. 
MR
MUKESH A PATEL for Opponent(s) : 1 - 4. 
MS AVANI S MEHTA for
Opponent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 01/09/2008 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER 

1. By filing this application, the applicant prayed that the amount deposited by the original petitioner in this Court may be disbursed. It is the case of the opponent that the amount deposited in this Court is towards pension and now the Honourable Supreme Court has, in the case between the General Manager, North West Railway & Ors. v. Chanda Devi. Reported in 2008 AIR SCW ý 244, held that daily wage employees of Railway would not be entitled to pension. Miss Mehta, appearing for opponent i.e. Original petitioner submitted that in this view of the matter, the request made in present application may not be granted. She also submitted that against the Judgment dtd.02.08.2007 passed in captioned Special Civil Application No.942 of 2000 L.P.A. has been filed and the same is pending.

2. It would be open for the applicant to make an appropriate application after order is passed in captioned SCA and at that stage, the request could be considered in detail in light of the aforesaid judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court.

3. Considering the aforesaid aspect, the relief prayed for in this application is not granted and application is not entertained.

4. With the aforesaid direction and clarification, the application is disposed of.

[K. M. THAKER, J.] bddave