Gujarat High Court
Mahendrabhai vs State on 27 December, 2011
Author: Anant S. Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/18593/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 18593 of 2011
======================================
MAHENDRABHAI
M TALATI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)
======================================
Appearance :
MR
MAHESH BHAVSAR for Petitioner
Mr.
R.D. Dave, AGP for respondent
No.1
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 27/12/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner seeking a mandamus directing against the respondents-authorities to allow the petitioner to resume his duty, by quashing and setting aside the order dated 1.11.2011 passed by the respondents.
As argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not allowed to perform duties by the husband of the present President of respondent No.5-Ode Municipality and, in spite of rendering about 32 years of service in different capacity with the Municipality, by the impugned order passed by the President of the Municipality, now the charge of the post of Clerk from the petitioner is taken away. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the duty to be discharged by the petitioner is on the post of Senior Clerk and, time and again, the President and her husband have, unnecessarily and for no reasons and in absence of power, tried to interfere with day to day performance of duties by the petitioner. In spite of ventilating the grievances before the District Collector, Anand, and the Director of Municipalities, no action is taken at their end and, therefore, this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for appropriate directions.
2 Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record and the impugned order dated 1.11.2011, it transpires that the President of the Municipality has passed an order to the extent that the charge of the post of Clerk is to be handed over to another Clerk and the petitioner is directed to perform duties as Recovery Personnel in the Recovery Branch of the Municipality. In the context of the aforementioned facts, grievances were also raised before the District Collector, Anand and the Director of Municipalities, State of Gujarat. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, in a matter of taking over charge by another colleague of similar post and the instruction given to the petitioner to perform duties as Recovery Personnel in the Recovery Branch of the Municipality, it cannot be said that the respondents have committed any illegality in passing the impugned order warranting any interference by this Court. So far as the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Manoj Nagardas Panchhiwala vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2004 (1) GLR 846, is concerned, it was pertaining to the power of the President of the Municipality to appoint an employee and, for good earthly reasons, if the President of the Municipality has thought it fit to direct the petitioner to perform the duties in a different department of the Municipality, it cannot be said to be in any manner illegal.
3 Considering the above, this petition has no merit and is rejected summarily with no order as to costs.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy) Top