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 2, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Patel Kalpeshkumar Somabhai & 58 vs State Of Gujarat & 5 on 10 October, 2016

Author: Abhilasha Kumari

Bench: Abhilasha Kumari

                  C/SCA/12242/2015                                            JUDGMENT




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12242 of 2015



         FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


         HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
         ===========================================================
         1   Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
             to see the judgment ?

         2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                                   No

         3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of                      No
               the judgment ?

         4     Whether this case involves a substantial question of                      No
               law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
               India or any order made thereunder ?

         ================================================================
                   PATEL KALPESHKUMAR SOMABHAI & 58....Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus
                         STATE OF GUJARAT & 5....Respondent(s)
         ================================================================
         Appearance:
         MR.DIPAK B PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 59
         MR NIRAJ ASHAR, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
         Respondent(s) No. 1-2, 6
         MR RAJESH CHAUHAN FOR MR HS MUNSHAW, ADVOCATE for the
         Respondent(s) No. 3-5
         ================================================================
             CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI

                                     Date : 10/10/2016


                                     ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This   petition   under   Article   226   of   the  Page 1 of 7 HC-NIC Page 1 of 7 Created On Tue Oct 11 00:07:08 IST 2016 C/SCA/12242/2015 JUDGMENT Constitution   of   India,   has   been   preferred   with   the  following prayers:

"[A] The   Honourable   Court   be   pleased   to   issue  writ   of   Mandamus   or   any   other   appropriate   writ  order   or   direction   directing   the   respondent  authorities to pay the HRA @ 20% and CLA as per  basic salary of the petitioners by holding that  the   petitioners   are   serving   at   a   place   covered  under   the   Greater   Ahmedabad   Urban   Agglomeration  which   includes   the   extended   limit   of   Ahmedabad  Urban Development Authority as per the definition  of   Urban   Agglomeration   in   the   interest   of  justice;
[B] Pending   hearing   and   final   disposal   of   the  present petition, the Honourable Court be pleased  to direct the respondent authorities to pay HRA @  20%   and   CLA   as   per   the   basic   salary   of   the   petitioners   from   the   date   of   their   appointment  and as per the resolution of 2009 of the Finance  Department  State   of  Gujarat  accepting  the  norms  of the Sixth Pay Commission), w.e.f. 01/04/2009,  in the interest of justice;
[C] Pending   hearing   and   final   disposal   of   the  present petition, the Honourable Court be pleased  to direct the respondents to release the arrears,   which   is   payable   to   the   petitioners   as   per   the  recommendation of the sixth pay commission in the   Page 2 of 7 HC-NIC Page 2 of 7 Created On Tue Oct 11 00:07:08 IST 2016 C/SCA/12242/2015 JUDGMENT interest of justice.
[D] The   Honourable   Court   be   pleased   to   grant  prayer in terms of Prayer [B] on such condition  which   the   Honourable   Court   may   deem   fit   in   the  interest of justice. 
[E] Any   other   and   further   order   that   this  Honourable   Court   may   deem   fit   be   passed   in   the  interest of justice."

2. Mr.Dipak   B.   Patel,   learned   counsel   for   the  petitioners,   has   submitted   that   petitions   involving  similar   facts   and   identical   issues   and   prayers   have  been   decided   by   a   common   judgment   dated   05.07.2016,  passed   by   this  Court  (Coram:   J.B.   Pardiwala,  J.)  in  Nitinkumar   C.   Patel   v.   State   of   Gujarat   ­   Special   Civil   Applications   No.1791   of   2007   and   connected   matters. It  is submitted that the issues arising in  the present petition are squarely covered by the said  judgment,   which   would   apply   to   the   case   of   the  petitioners, as well.

3. Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioners   has   further  submitted that following the judgment in the case of  Nitinkumar C. Patel v. State of Gujarat (supra), this  Page 3 of 7 HC-NIC Page 3 of 7 Created On Tue Oct 11 00:07:08 IST 2016 C/SCA/12242/2015 JUDGMENT Court   (Coram:   N.V.Anjaria,   J.)   has   passed   an   order  dated   25.07.2016,   in  Special   Civil   Application   No.12201 of 2016 on similar lines. Interim relief has  also   been   granted   to   the   petitioners.   Similar  directions, therefore, may be issued in this case as  well.

4. Mr.Niraj   Ashar,   learned   Assistant   Government  Pleader   appearing   for   respondents   Nos.1,   2   and   6,  submits   that   the   matter   is   covered   by   the   above­ referred judgments, which would be applicable in the  present case. Mr.Rajesh Chauhan for Mr.H.S. Munshaw,  learned advocate for respondents Nos.3 to 5, has also  submitted   that   the   present   case   is   similar   to   the  cases   of   the   petitioners   which   are   covered   by   the  judgment referred to hereinabove.

5. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the  respective   parties,   it   may  be  mentioned   that  in  the  judgment dated 05.07.2016, passed by this Court in the  case   of  Nitinkumar   C.   Patel   v.   State   of   Gujarat   (supra), the following directions have been issued: Page 4 of 7

HC-NIC Page 4 of 7 Created On Tue Oct 11 00:07:08 IST 2016 C/SCA/12242/2015 JUDGMENT "38 In view of  the above, I pass  the following  order:
(I)   The   State   Government   will   constitute   a  committee, as noted above, at the earliest, and   the   committee   shall   make   all   possible   endevours  to   see   that   an   appropriate   decision   is   taken  within a period of six  months from  the date  of   the constitution of the committee. 
(II)   The   representatives   of   the   writ   applicants  shall appear before the committee and make their   submissions.
(III)   The   committee   shall   hear   those  representatives on behalf of the writ applicants. 
(IV) It shall be open for the representatives to   file their written submissions with the necessary  materials in that regard. 
(V) The ad­interim relief, which is operating in  favour   of   each   of   the   writ   applicants,   shall  continue till an appropriate decision is taken by  the committee, and the report is filed before the   State   Government.   The   ad­interim   relief   shall   also continue thereafter i.e. after the report of  the committee for a further period of two months. 
(VI) The undertakings given earlier by the writ  applicants   shall   continue   to   operate   till   the  decision is taken by the committee. 
Page 5 of 7

HC-NIC Page 5 of 7 Created On Tue Oct 11 00:07:08 IST 2016 C/SCA/12242/2015 JUDGMENT (VII)   The   committee   shall   give   detailed   reasons  in support of its conclusion.

39 With the above observation and directions, all   these   writ   applications   are   disposed   of   in   the  above terms. It is clarified that if ultimately   the   writ   applicants   are   dissatisfied,   in   any   manner,   with   the   decision   of   the   State  Government, which may be taken, on the basis of   the   report   of   the   committee,   then   it   shall   be  open for the writ applicants to once again avail   of   an   appropriate   legal   remedy   before   the  appropriate   forum   in   accordance   with   law.   I  clarify that I have otherwise not gone into the   merit of the matter. 

40   In   view   of   the   order   passed   in   the   main  matters,   the   connected   Civil   Applications   are  also disposed of.

6. As   the   issues   involved   in   the   present   petition  are   similar   to   the   issues   involved   in   petitions  decided   by   the   above­quoted   judgment,   the   above  directions   would   be   applicable   to   the   present  petitioners as well.

7. Accordingly, it is directed that while the final  rights   of   the   petitioners   shall   be   governed   by   the  judgment   dated   05.07.2016   passed   in   the   case   of  Page 6 of 7 HC-NIC Page 6 of 7 Created On Tue Oct 11 00:07:08 IST 2016 C/SCA/12242/2015 JUDGMENT Nitinkumar C. Patel v. State of Gujarat (supra), the  operative   part   of   which   has   been   reproduced  hereinabove,   however,   it   is   directed   that   the  petitioners shall be paid HRA at the rate of 20% and  CLA as per their basic salary as per the Resolution of  2009 of the State Government, subject to the condition  that the petitioners shall file an Undertaking to the  effect that in the event that they lose, they shall  refund the amount with 9% interest. 

8. The petition is, therefore, disposed of, on the  basis of the above observations and directions.

9. It   is,   however,   made   clear   that   if   the  petitioners are dissatisfied  with the  decision taken  by the State Government on the basis of the report of  the Committee, it would be open for them to avail of  the   appropriate   legal   remedy   before   the   appropriate  legal   forum,   in   accordance   with   law.   The   Court   may  further clarify that while passing this order, it has  not gone into the merits of the matter.

(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) piyush Page 7 of 7 HC-NIC Page 7 of 7 Created On Tue Oct 11 00:07:08 IST 2016