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 3]

Gujarat High Court

Pwd Employees Union - & vs State Of Gujarat & on 27 February, 2013

Author: Paresh Upadhyay

Bench: Paresh Upadhyay

  
	 
	 PWD EMPLOYEES UNION - THROUGH PRESIDENT SAIYED IBRAHIMV/SSTATE OF GUJARAT THRO SECRETARY
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	

 
 


	 


	C/SCA/1856/2012
	                                                                    
	                           ORDER

 

 


 
	  
	  
		 
			 

IN
			THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
		
	

 


 


 


SPECIAL CIVIL
APPLICATION  NO. 1856 of 2012
 


with 

 


SPECIAL CIVIL
APPLICATION  NO. 1857 of 2012
 


TO
 


SPECIAL CIVIL
APPLICATION  NO. 1861 of 2012
 


 


 

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


PWD EMPLOYEES UNION - &
Ors.  ....Petitioners
 


Versus
 


STATE OF GUJARAT &
Anr......Respondents
 

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

Appearance:
 

Mr.
Shalin Mehta, Sr. Advocate  with Ms. Vidhi J. Bhatt for the
Petitioners 

 

Mr.
Rashesh Rindani, AGP for the Respondents
 

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

 


 


	 
		  
		 
		  
			 
				 

CORAM:
				
				
			
			 
				 

HONOURABLE
				MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
			
		
	

 


 

 


Date : 27/02/2013
 


 

 


ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Vidhi J. Bhatt for the petitioner and Mr. Rindani learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.

2. It is stated that by learned Advocates for the petitioners that the petitioners are already granted benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. However, on some issues, they are still not treated at par with other regularly appointed employees. The heads under which the discrimination is meted out, according to them, is as under -

a) Public holidays,
b) Transport allowance,
c) Medical allowance,
d) Group insurance,
e) Leave encashment at the time of retirement and death.
f) Counting of service from the date of joining for the purpose of pension.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the issue relating to above benefits, including the sixth one i.e. counting of service from the date of joining for the purpose of pension have been concluded by number of orders passed by this Court. In these regard reference is made to the following orders passed by this Court.

(1)

Decision of this Court, in the case of Tribhovanbhai Jerambhai Vs. Deputy Executive Engineer, R & B Deptt. reported in 1998 (2) G.L.H. 1.

(2)

In the case of Chhaganbhai Ranchodbhai Rathod Vs. Deputy Executive Engineer in LPA 1495 of 1997 dated 06.08.1998.

(3)

In case of Shyam B. Salunkhe Vs. Deputy Executive Engineer in Special Civil Application No. 788 of 2005 dated 14.12.2005.

(4) In the case of Sultan Ibrahim Mansuri Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. in Special Civil Application No. 4479 of 2000 dated 19.12.2006.

(5) Decision in Special Civil Application No. 3607 of 1982 dated 30.01.1996.

(6) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat & Anr. Vs. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas & Anr. in LPA No. 958 of 2001 dated 18th March, 2011.

4. If the contents of the affidavit in reply is seen, much emphasis is made about the challenge made to the order of this Court dated 18.03.2011 in LPA No. 958 of 2001 referred above. It is reported that the said challenge i.e. SLP No 35043 of 2012 and cognate matters are dismissed on 09.11.2012 by the Supreme Court of India. With this, the bone contention in the affidavit in reply, prima facie, gets negated.

5. In above background, what contest, Government still intends to put against the petitioner, shall have to be reported to the Court.

6. At the request of learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Rindani, list on 13th March, 2013.

(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) bhati Page 3 of 3