Badi Mumtazben Amibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 4 July, 2018

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Badi Mumtazben Amibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 4 July, 2018

Bench: N.V.Anjaria

         C/SCA/10120/2018                                    ORDER




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10120 of 2018

==========================================================
                            BADI MUMTAZBEN AMIBHAI
                                    Versus
                               STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA

                                Date : 04/07/2018

                                 ORAL ORDER

Heard learned advocate for the petitioner.

2. By filling the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to set aside the communication dated 31.3.2018. It is further prayed to direct the respondent authorities to treat the petitioner as having voluntarily retired with effect from 31.3.2015 and to extend the consequential pensionary benefits.

2.1 As far as the aforementioned communication dated 31.3.2018 is concerned, the same is addressed to the petitioner by respondent No.3- Chief District Health Officer, District Panchayat, Rajkot, wherein the request of the petitioner to treat her as having been voluntarily retired with effect from 31.3.2015 was rejected stating that earlier the petitioner has tendered resignation which was accepted with effect from 30.4.2013.

3. According to the case of the petitioner, she was appointed as ad hoc female Health Worker with effect from 2.1.1996. Due to her Page 1 of 3 C/SCA/10120/2018 ORDER personal and family reasons, the petitioner tendered application dated 9.1.2013 seeking permission to retire her voluntarily with effect from 30.4.2013. The said application was accepted and by communication dated 17.3.2015, the authorities accepted the resignation of the petitioner with effect from 30.4.2013.

4. It is the grievance now raised by the petitioner that though she was appointed with effect from 1996 as Female Health Worker on ad hoc basis for long time, her services were retained as ad hoc only and benefit of regularisation was not granted. It is stated that writ petitions were filed before this court being Special Civil Application No. 8714 by other ad hoc female Health Workers praying for regularisation in which this court passed order dated 23.3.2016 and the petitions were allowed. Letters Patent Appeal of the state government came to be dismissed on 14.9.2007. The petitioner has stated that thereafter 46 female Health Workers services came to be regulsrised by passing resolution dated 25.2.2009.

5. It is the say of the petitioner that her name figures in the list but in the remarks column, it was shown that the petitioner resigned with effect from 30.4.2013. The petitioner made representation dated 22.2.2018 to the respondent No.3 authority requesting to treat her voluntarily retired with effect from 31.3.2015 and consequentially to extend the benefit.

6. The petitioner had already tendered resignation which was accepted with effect from 30.4.2013. Now the petitioner cannot resile back to pray that resignation may be accepted from the subsequent date i.e. 31.3.2015 and that the benefit of regularation may be granted to her. She wants to set the clock back which is neither possible nor permissible.

Page 2 of 3 C/SCA/10120/2018 ORDER

On facts the prayer is totally misconceived and one which could not be considered.

7. No relief as prayed for could be granted. The petition is meritless and is hereby dismissed.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J) C.M. JOSHI Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court