Mukesh vs Ahmedabad on 16 April, 2010
The
previous as well as subsequent conduct makes it very clear that the
applicant was entitled to this benefit. Since this Court has
directed to give the consequential benefits and the benefits are not
given in the manner in which the applicant is entitled, the applicant
had filed Special Civil Application No.7258 of 2008 for appropriate
direction to the respondent Corporation, which was converted into
the present Misc. Civil Application and is placed before this Court.
The decision of the Apex Court, cited by the learned Advocate for the
Corporation, in the case of State of Haryana & Ors vs. Babu
Singh (supra) is of no assistance to the respondent Corporation.
In that case, the petition was dismissed. Thereafter a second
petition was filed which was withdrawn. The petitioner thereafter
filed an application for revival of earlier petition which was
allowed and relief was granted by the High Court. This decision of
the High Court was reversed by the Apex Court. It is altogether in
different context. In the present case, the petition was allowed and
the respondent Corporation was directed to reinstate the applicant
and to give all consequential benefits within one month from the
date of the receipt of the writ of this Court or certified copy of
the order. It is the continuation of the earlier proceedings and
there is no separate cause of action. Since the consequential
benefits to which the applicant is entitled and not granted the law
of equity, justice and fair play requires this court to entertain
this application and grant the pensionary benefits. In above view
of the matter, the court is of the view that, the grievance
ventilated by the applicant in the present application is quite
justified and applicant is entitled to the pensionary benefits in
place of contributory provident fund scheme.