Allowed

Kukkana Laxmanbhai Gangabhai v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC17 Jul 2012SCA/2670/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking continuation in teaching services and salary were allowed in reliance on a prior order covering identical issues. The court disposed of identical petitions without entering into merits, directing implementation of the earlier order within one month. Rule made absolute with no costs.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed in terms of order dated 25.01.2011; quashing of termination/approval refusal; continuation in service and salary; respondent to implement within one month.

Kukkana Laxmanbhai Gangabhai Vs State of Gujarat — Service and Employment | Gujarat HC (2012)

¶1

SCA/2669/2012

¶2

1/7

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶5

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2669 of 2012 With

¶6

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2670 of 2012

¶7

For Approval and Signature:

¶8

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI

¶9

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

¶10

1^{Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed}

¶11

to see the judgment ?

¶12

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶13

3^{Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of} the judgment ?

¶14

Whether this case involves a substantial question

¶15

4 of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

¶16

5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?

¶17

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

¶18

PARSHOTTAMBHAI ZIPRUBHAI MAHLA - Petitioner(s)

¶19

Versus

¶20

STATE OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)

¶21

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

¶22

Appearance :

¶23

MS DESAI for MRS SHILPA R SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR HS SONI AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 5.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI

¶26

Date : 17/07/2012

¶27

SCA/2669/2012

¶28

2/7

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

By way of these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :-

¶32

“[A] The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the action of respondents in orally dismissing the petitioner from the services w.e.f. April - May, 2008 as being illegal, arbitrary, in violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India;

¶33

[B] The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the letter dated 27.09.2004 and 01.07.2011 issued by respondents declining to approve the petitioner's appointment as Assistant Teacher of Nav Abhigam Asharam Shala on account of the age limit;

¶34

[C] The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold, declare and direct that the petitioner who was duly appointed should be continued in the services of the respondents with all consequential benefits and the question of approval of the appointment of the petitioner should not be raised by the respondents hereinafter;

¶35

[D] The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of Assistant Teacher and draw regular salaries till the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition.

¶36

[E] The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith grant the arrears of salary of the petitioner w.e.f. 2005 along with interest and be

¶37

SCA/2669/2012

¶38

3/7

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

further pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant regular salary every month without altering the service conditions of the petitioner, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition;

¶41

[F] .....”

¶42

While admitting the matters on 11.04.2011, this Court had passed the following order :-

¶43

“1. Present order is passed without prejudice to the contentions as regards delay in preferring present petition.

¶44

The copy of petition appears to have been served to the office of Government Pleader on 21/02/2012, and; after hearing learned advocate for the petitioner, the Court (Coram:R.M.Chhaya, J.) directed the office to issue notice to the respondents. The notice was made returnable on 15/03/2012. Since then, despite adjournment at the request of learned AGP, until now, any reply affidavit contesting the petition has not been filed, and; despite the fact that on earlier occasion an order has been passed with a direction to forward copy of the said order to the learned Government Pleader, taking note of the peculiar reply being given to the Court and peculiar method to put question mark in the cause list against the listed matters and not providing the files of the case. In this case also the said practice is followed and it is submitted that papers are not received and question mark is put in the cause list, therefore, the Court is compelled to pass present order.

¶45

Sufficient adjournments have been granted to file reply affidavit and yet any reply has not been filed.

¶46

SCA/2669/2012

¶47

4/7

¶48

JUDGMENT

¶49

Ms.Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that present petition is identical to the group of petitions being Special Civil Application No.14957 of 2010 and allied matters which came to be decided by the Court vide order dated 25/01/2011 and thereafter the petitioner had made representation to extend similar direction to the petitioner as was granted by the authorities to the petitioners in the aforesaid group of petitions, after the decision by the Court.

¶50

Needless to say that by earlier orders in various petitions it is clarified and directed that the authorities and respondent State in cases where persons who have not approached the Court but are similarly placed should not be denied benefit of the decision of the Court merely on the ground that he/she was not one of the petitioners before the Court and if the benefit of the judgment is otherwise available to other persons, then, though they were not before the Court, such benefit should be extended to them without requiring the persons to approach the Court.

¶51

In present case the respondent authorities do not appear to have acted in consonance with the said directions by the Court.

¶52

Learned advocate Ms.Shah has submitted that case of present petitioner is directly and squarely covered within the purview of the decision dated 25/01/2011 passed by the Court in aforesaid group of the petitions.

¶53

Having regard to the aforesaid aspects, Rule returnable on 09/05/2012.

¶54

It is clarified that if any objection is not filed on or before 25/04/2012 (after service of copy of reply to the petitioner), appropriate orders in consonance with the

¶55

SCA/2669/2012

¶56

5/7

¶57

JUDGMENT

¶58

decision dated 25/01/2011 will be passed by the Court and in the event the petition is allowed in absence of any reply, then Court may consider the option of passing appropriate order of imposing cost against the concerned officer responsible to file reply affidavit.”

¶59

In spite of the aforesaid order, no reply is filed till date. However, the issue involved in these petitions is squarely covered by the order dated 25.01.2011 passed in Special Civil Application No. 14957 of 2010 and allied matters, more particularly, the observations made in para 5, which reads as under :-

¶60

“5. In light of the statement made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader as recorded hereinabove and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective petitioners, this Court does not propose to enter into the merits of the case, therefore, the following order is passed :-

¶61

(1) Upon withdrawal of resolutions/orders dated 04.08.2010 and 16.09.2010 by the State Government, all consequential orders of termination of service of the petitioners passed by the management of different Ashramshalas across the State are quashed and set aside and the petitioners will continue in service and be paid salary for the intervening period, unless their services have been discontinued by the Ashramshalas for any other reason.

¶62

(2) Any order regarding stoppage of salary of the teachers/petitioners passed by the respective Ashramshalas as a consequence of orders dated 04.08.2010 and 16.09.2010, and any other

¶63

SCA/2669/2012

¶64

6/7

¶65

JUDGMENT

¶66

consequential orders passed by the State authorities, are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶67

(3) Till such time as the State Government takes a final decision regarding grant/non-grant of approval to the appointments of teaching staff in different Ashramshalas, including the petitioners, the service conditions of the petitioners shall not be changed or altered in any manner, to their disadvantage.

¶68

(4) The State Government shall release the necessary grant for payment of the salaries of Assistant Teachers working in Ashramshalas, including the petitioners, till such time as the final decision is taken.

¶69

(5) The managements of different Ashramshalas shall co-operate with the State Government by providing necessary documents regarding all persons employed by them, when called upon to do so.

¶70

(6) As these petitions have not been decided on merits, the rights and contentions available to the respective parties are kept open.

¶71

(7) As the statement recorded hereinabove envisages reconsideration of the appointments of the teachers/petitioners in Ashramshalas across the State, it may not be considered as a promise held out by the State Government to any of them.

¶72

(8) Upon a final decision being taken by the State Government, if any adverse order is passed against any of the petitioners, the concerned petitioner shall be given an intimation in writing by RPAD immediately, and the said order shall not be implemented for a period of one month from the

¶73

SCA/2669/2012

¶74

7/7

¶75

JUDGMENT

¶76

date of receipt of the order.”

¶77

In view of the above, the petitions are allowed in terms of the aforesaid order dated 25.01.2011 passed in Special Civil Application No. 14957 of 2010 and allied matters. The petitions stand disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. It is however, observed that the respondent shall implement the aforesaid order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of writ of this order.

¶78

Direct Service is permitted.

¶79

[K.S. JHAVERI, J.]

¶80

/phalguni/

Kukkana Laxmanbhai Gangabhai v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kukkana Laxmanbhai Gangabhai v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Venkatesh Iyer Vs National Insurance Co.Ltd.

Sarvangi Vikas Kelvani Mandal Vs Secretary

Municipal Commissioner Vs Hansaben K Parvadia

Indravijaysinh B Gohil Vs Bhavnagar University

Pacific Education Trust Thro Authorised Signatory Ronak Vs All India Council for Technical Education Thro Regional Dire

Parshottambhai Ziprubhai Mahla Vs State of Gujarat