Kanubhai Amidas Vankar vs State Of Gujarat & on 23 February, 2016

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Kanubhai Amidas Vankar vs State Of Gujarat & on 23 February, 2016

Bench: J.B.Pardiwala

                      C/CA/581/2016                                                   ORDER




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                     CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 581 of 2016

                       In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6920 of 2014
                                           With
                         SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6920 of 2014
         ==========================================================
                            KANUBHAI AMIDAS VANKAR....Applicant(s)
                                          Versus
                            STATE OF GUJARAT & 11....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR.SUBHASH G BAROT, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
         MR UTKARSH SHARMA, ASSTT.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
         Respondent(s) No. 1
         ==========================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

                                              Date : 23/02/2016


                                               ORAL ORDER

Instead of hearing the C.A., the main matter itself can be heard and disposed of. The C.A is disposed of accordingly.

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6920 of 2014 By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, serving as Primary Teachers with the respondent No.4 School, have prayed for the following reliefs:-

                A)      To admit and allow the present petition;

                B)     To quash and set aside the communication dated 9.4.2014 and further

to declare that the action of respondents of directing recovery of alleged excess payment of HRA, CLA and vehicle allowance, is bad in law;

Page 1 of 3

HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Sun Feb 28 05:48:55 IST 2016 C/CA/581/2016 ORDER C) To declare that the petitioners are entitled to HRA, CLA and vehicle allowance at the rate admissible in Vadodara City;

D) Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, to restrain the respondents from making any recovery from the petitioners for alleged excess payment made to the petitioners under the head of HRA, CLA and vehicle allowance and further to direct the respondents to continue payment of HRA, CLA and vehicle allowance at the rate which are received by the petitioners in the past;

It is the case of the petitioners that they are serving in the Rampura Primary School situated at the village Angadh, Tal. Dhanora, Dist. Baroda. It appears that village Rampura is not a separate revenue village, nor a Gram Panchayat. It also appears that Rampura is a part of the Dhanora village and is being administered by the Dhanora Village Panchayat. It is stated that since the village Rampura is a part of the Dhanora village, the benefits which are available to the Government employees working in the Government Departments at Dhanora are available to the petitioners. It is their case that they are eligible to get HRA, CLA and transportation allowance at the rates admissible to the employees working in the Baroda city. It appears that the authorities have taken a decision that an excess amount of Rs. 400 per month has been paid to each of the petitioners towards transportation allowance and the said amount is now sought to be recovered.

I propose to quash the impugned order only on the ground that before taking the decision to recover the excess amount, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners. In the result, this application is allowed. The impugned order dated 9.4.2014 is quashed. The authorities concerned may issue a fresh notice to the petitioners and give them an opportunity of hearing. It will be open for the authorities to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law.

I am told that one of the petitioners has retired from service. Since the adjudication of this issue is likely to take time, it should not come in the way of the petitioner No.1 so far as the retiral benefits are concerned. It will be open for the respondent authority to take an appropriate undertaking from the petitioner No.1 and Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Sun Feb 28 05:48:55 IST 2016 C/CA/581/2016 ORDER pass appropriate orders as regards his retiral benefits.

With the above, this petition is disposed of. Direct service permitted.

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) Mohandas Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Sun Feb 28 05:48:55 IST 2016

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court