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 0, Cited by 4]

Gujarat High Court

Banuben Rameshbhai Dhakan vs State Of Gujarat Thro on 27 November, 2013

Author: K.M.Thaker

Bench: K.M.Thaker

  
	 
	 BANUBEN RAMESHBHAI DHAKAN....Petitioner(s)V/SSTATE OF GUJARAT THRO SECRETARY
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	

 
 


	 


	C/SCA/740/2013
	                                                                    
	                           ORDER

 

 


 
	  
	  
		 
			 

IN
			THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
		
	

 


 


 


SPECIAL CIVIL
APPLICATION  NO. 740 of 2013
 


 


 

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


BANUBEN RAMESHBHAI
DHAKAN....Petitioner(s)
 


Versus
 


STATE OF GUJARAT THRO
SECRETARY  &  3....Respondent(s)
 

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

Appearance:
 

MR
VIMAL M PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
 

MR.DHARMESH
DEVNANI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
 

MR
AR THACKER, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
 

MS
BALA R THACKER, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
 

NOTICE
SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4
 

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

 


 


	 
		  
		 
		  
			 
				 

CORAM:
				
				
			
			 
				 

HONOURABLE
				MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
			
		
	

 


 

 


Date : 27/11/2013
 


 

 


ORAL ORDER

Heard Mr.Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Dharmesh Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

According to the petitioner, his case falls under Clause 4 of the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984. Therefore, the action of the respondents of not granting benefits to the petitioner is incorrect.

In support of his contentions, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on certain decisions of this Court.

Having regard to the issues raised in the petition and the decision on which the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied, petition requires consideration. Hence, below mentioned order is passed.

RULE.

The petitioner claims retiral benefits, more particularly pension.

Considering the fact that claim raised in the petition relates to pension, process of Rule returnable on 09.12.2013.

(K.M.THAKER, J.) Girish Page 2 of 2