Gujarat High Court
Shree Hasmukhlal M Kothari vs State Of Gujarat Thro. Deputy Secretary ... on 1 September, 2014
Author: Ks Jhaveri
Bench: Ks Jhaveri, A.G.Uraizee
C/LPA/761/2012 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 761 of 2012
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3582 of 2010
================================================================
SHREE HASMUKHLAL M KOTHARI....Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT THRO. DEPUTY SECRETARY & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PRADEEP PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR KIRIT I PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
Date : 01/09/2014
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application no. 3582 of 2010 on 22/7/2011, whereby the learned Single Judge has not granted his full prayer. The prayer which was claimed by the petitioner reads as under:
"(A) May be pleased to admit this Writ Petition.Page 1 of 4 C/LPA/761/2012 ORDER
(B) Be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned Orders dated 17/8/1998 and 8/4/1993 passed by the respondent no. 1 and Order dated 21/4/1998 passed by the respondent no. 2 (Annexure A collectively), after holding the same as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and further be pleased to hold that respondent no. 2 has not held the enquiry against the petitioner worth the name and therefore the petitioner is entitled to all arrears of salary with all increments and revision of wages from 5/6/1984 to 23/2/1993 after deducting the amount of subsistence allowance paid to the petitioner and also direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner the amount of salary for each month after the date of reinstatement till the date of superannuation i.e. 31/7/1995 together with the amount of P.F. deposited as contribution of the employer, and other admissible requirement benefits with interest at the rate of 12@ per annum.
(C) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the impugned Orders dated 17/8/1998, 21/8/1998 and 8/4/1993 (Annexure A collectively) and be pleased to direct the respondents to grant all the post retirement Page 2 of 4 C/LPA/761/2012 ORDER benefits to the petitioner with interest and be pleased to direct the respondents to treat the service of the petitioner as continuous from date of suspension to date of retirement and to pay the arrears of salary with interest.
(D) Be pleased to pass such other/further orders deemed fit and pleased to award the costs of this Petition.
(E) Be pleased to pass such other/further orders deemed fit and pleased to award the costs of this Petition."
Mr. Patel learned counsel for the appellant contended that though the order of learned Single Judge is very clear and learned Single Judge in para 9 & 10 of the judgement has held in his favour but the respondent, by misinterpreting order, have not granted any benefit in favour of the appellant.
We have heard learned counsel Mr. Pradeep Patel on behalf of the appellant at length and in great detail. We have also perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the petitioner is restored to his original post and entitled for all consequential benefits including increments and revision of pay scale ect. It appears that para 9 & 10 are not subject matter of the appeal and no adverse order is passed to withdraw any benefit.
Page 3 of 4 C/LPA/761/2012 ORDERIn that view of the matter, it is clarified that petitioner is entitled for all benefits which is claimed in the petition namely increment, revise payscale from 5/6/1984 to 23/2/1993 prior to 31/7/1995. However, the amount which is already paid to the petitioner the same will be adjusted.
The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. The payment will be made within six months.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (A.G.URAIZEE,J) *asma Page 4 of 4