Gujarat High Court
Manoharbhai Parshottambhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 11 April, 2018
Author: K.M.Thaker
Bench: K.M.Thaker
C/SCA/16306/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16306 of 2015
MANOHARBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
Appearance:
MR DHAVAL M BAROT(2723) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR NIRAJ ASHAR AGP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date : 11/04/2018
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Sankul Kabra, learned advocate for Mr. D.M. Barot, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Niraj Ashar, learned AGP for respondent No.1 and Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for respondent No.2.
2. At the outset Mr. Sankul Kabra, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that this petition is actually part of group of other identical petition viz. Special Civil Application No.18653 of 2014, Special Civil Application No.18655 of 2014, Special Civil Application No.7016 of 2014 and Special Civil Application No.7017 of 2014, however this petition got segregated.
Page 1 of 5 C/SCA/16306/2015 ORDER 2.1 He also submitted that in present petition the petitioner has prayed for similar and identical relief as prayed for in aforesaid 4 petitions.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner tendered a copy of the common order dated 1.12.2017 passed in Special Civil Application No.18653 of 2014, Special Civil Application No.18655 of 2014, Special Civil Application No.7016 of 2014 and Special Civil Application No.7017 of 2014 and Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that similar order may be passed in respect of this petition as well.
4. On perusal of the said order it appears that in the said 4 petitions the petitioners had prayed, inter alia, that:-
"(A) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in nature thereof or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to treat the petitioners as pension optees and to fix and grant them pension as per rules governing pension.
(B) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the decision of the respondents in unilaterally treating the case of the petitioners under CPF option and not giving them an option of GPF/Pension and not paying pension to the petitioners ;"
5. So far present petition is concerned the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, that:-
"8(A) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in nature thereof or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to treat the petitioners as pension optees and to fix and grant them pension as per rules governing pension.
(B) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Page 2 of 5 C/SCA/16306/2015 ORDER and setting aside the decision of the respondents in unilaterally treating the case of the petitioners under CPF option and not giving them an option of GPF / Pension and not paying pension to the petitioners."
6. On plain comparison of the relief prayed for in present petition and the relief prayed for in said other 4 petitions it comes out that the relief prayed for in present petition is almost similar to the relief prayed for in said other 4 petitions.
7. In the said common order dated 1.12.2017 the Court took into account paragraph No. 2.18 and 2.19 of the said petitions. In present petition also almost similar averments are found in paragraph Nos. 2.17 and 2.18. The paragraph Nos. 2.17 and 2.18 reads thus:-
"2.17 Since the petitioners have not given the benefit of Pension, Gratuity and GPF and though the petitioners' services under the State Government were required to be treated as service with the Board, some similarly situated persons had written a letter dated 22.8.2012........However, no reply has been given by the respondents to the said letter of the petitioners. The said persons have filed Special Civil Application No. 18653 of 2014 before this Hon'ble Court and in the said matter notice has been issued and the matter is pending for consideration before this Hon'ble Court.
2.18 This being the situation, the petitioner was also entitled to the benefits of GPF and Pension and were wrongly inducted in CPF Scheme by the department being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the denial of benefits of GPF, Pension and Gratuity, the petitioners preferred this petition."
8. Even learned advocate for the respondents has no objection if the petition is disposed of on similar line and similar order as in case of above mentioned 4 petitions.
9. In the said order the Court has recorded that:- Page 3 of 5 C/SCA/16306/2015 ORDER
"3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the respondent-Board for not granting the benefit of GPF to the petitioners and, instead, treating the case of the petitioners under CPF option and not paying pension to the petitioners .
5. According to the petitioners, they have submitted a representation and have addressed a letter dated 22nd August, 2012.
6. The petitioners have claimed that the respondent -Board has not considered their representations and letter dated 22nd August, 2012 and any decision with regard to the details mentioned in representation and the said letter is not taken.
7. From the reply filed by the respondent -Board also it does not come out as to whether the said representation and said letter of the petitioners have been considered by the authority and an order with appropriate reason is passed, or not.
10. Having regard to the said order as well as having regard to the facts of present case and in light of the submission and request by learned advocate for the petitioner for similar order and considering the fact that the respondents also have no objection if similar order is passed, the petition is disposed of with following observations:-
(a) The competent authority shall take up for consideration the representation submitted by the petitioner and after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the competent authority shall take appropriate decision with regard to the request and representation made by the petitioner.
(b). The authority shall record reasons in support of the decision and pass reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible, but preferably within a period of 8 weeks Page 4 of 5 C/SCA/16306/2015 ORDER from date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid clarification the petition is disposed of.
Orders accordingly.
(K.M.THAKER, J) SURESH SOLANKI Page 5 of 5