Dismissed

Hansaben K Parvadia v. Municipal Commissioner

Gujarat HC5 Jul 2012SCA/9245/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Jhaveri. Date: 05.07.2012. The petitioner challenged an order granting back pay and consequential benefits. The Corporation argued State Government approval was needed. The Court held the Tribunal's order regarding the delay and grant of arrears was just, proper, and correct.

What did the court decide?

The quashing application was dismissed; the Tribunal's order was upheld. Limitation for payment of arrears commences from the date of order.

Hansaben K Parvadia Vs Municipal Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gujarat HC (2012)

¶1

SCA/9245/2011

¶2

1/3

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶5

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9245 of 2011 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 611 of 2012

¶6

For Approval and Signature:

¶7

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI

¶8

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

¶9

1^{Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed} to see the judgment ?

¶10

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶11

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

¶12

Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the 4 constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

¶13

5^{Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge} ?

¶14

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

¶15

HANSABEN K PARVADIA - Petitioner(s)

¶16

Versus

¶17

MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER & 5 - Respondent(s)

¶18

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

¶19

Appearance :

¶20

MR AJ SHASTRIfor Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1, 3, 6,
MRHAMESHCNAIDU for Respondent(s) : 2,
MR PRANAV DAVE AGP for Respondent(s) : 4 - 5.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM :HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI

¶23

Date : 05/07/2012

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

1. The petitioner-Hansaben K. Parvadia has preferred

¶26

the petition for the modification in the order
passed by the Tribunal in Application No.67 of

¶27

SCA/9245/2011

¶28

2/3

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

2012, whereby the arrears was ordered to be paid
from 15.07.2007, instead of from the date of her
eligibility i.e. 14.02.2000 of second higher pay-
scale, whereas, the Corporation has filed the
petition to quash and set aside the impugned
order of the Tribunal.

¶31

2. Learned counsel for the Corporation has contended that the school, where the original applicantteacher was serving, is run by the State Government, therefore, State Government has to approve the pay-scale and other benefits.

¶32

3. The Tribunal, while considering the case of the original applicant-teacher observed that it is not in dispute that original applicant was appointed as teacher on 17.08.1978 and first higher pay-scale was granted to her on 14.02.1989. The Tribunal has also observed that as per GR dated 16.08.1994, the original claimant is entitled for second higher pay-scale on 14.02.2000 and accordingly, the pay fixation has been made by the DEO on 08.08.2005 and the same has been approved by the Local Fund. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal has ordered to grant the second higher pay-scale from 14.02.2000 alongwith consequential benefits including pension.

¶33

4. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal has while passing the order has rightly taken into consideration the fact that the second higher

¶34

SCA/9245/2011

¶35

3/3

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

pay-scale was due to the original applicant in
the year 2000. Further it is required to be noted
that fixation of the second higher pay-scale has
been made on 08.08.2005. However, the original
applicant has filed the application before the
Tribunal on 15.07.2010 in respect of the same.
Thus, the Tribunal after considering the delay in
making application by the original applicant has
rightly granted the arrears from 15.07.2007.
Further it is required to be noted that the
demand of the original applicant was legitimate,
however, on account of delay in pursuing the
demand, the Tribunal has rightly granted the
arrears from 15.07.2007 i.e. before three years
of filing of the application.

¶38

5. In that view of the matter, the order passed by
the Tribunal is just, proper and correct. There
is no illegality, much less any perversity in the
findings recorded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal
has rightly considered the facts and circumstance
of the case and evidence on record and thus, no
interference is called for. It is however
clarified that the limitation period as
prescribed by the Tribunal for the payment of
arrears will commence from the date of this order
i.e.90 days from today.

¶39

[K.S.JHAVERI, J.]

¶40

..mitesh..

Hansaben K Parvadia v. Municipal Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hansaben K Parvadia v. Municipal Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Labhudan Manubhai Gadhvi Vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

District Education Officer Vs Christi Ruhama Jobinbhai

District Education Officer Vs Christi Prasannkumar Koranbhai

Municipal Commissioner Vs Hansaben K Parvadia

Nanjibhai B Vagadia Vs State of Gujarat

Rakesh a Saradva Vs Saurashtra University through Vice Chancellor