Dismissed

Rushi Ashwin Kumar Shukla v. Raj Gopal

Gujarat HC2 May 2018MCA/621/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt application, the petitioner challenged the High Court for finding a deliberate violation of a prior direction granting him a compassionate appointment. The court held that the rejection of the claim did not amount to a deliberate violation and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to question the order dated 13th October 2016 before appropriate forum. Application dismissed.

Rushi Ashwin Kumar Shukla Vs Raj Gopal — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

C/MCA/621/2017 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 621 of 2017

¶4

In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6088 of 2014

¶5

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

¶6

RUSHI ASHWIN KUMAR SHUKLA

¶7

Versus

¶8

RAJ GOPAL

¶9

========================================================== Appearance:

¶10

MR HARDIK H PANDIT(5820) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY and

¶13

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

¶14

Date : 02/05/2018

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY)

¶17

This Miscellaneous Civil Application is filed under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging that the respondents have intentionally and deliberately violated the directions issued in the order dated 27^th July, 2016 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6088 of 2014.

¶18

Father of the applicant was serving as Deputy Accountant in the Surendranagar District Panchayat. While he was in service, he died on 23^rd September, 2006. It is the

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

C/MCA/621/2017 ORDER

¶21

case of the applicant that, immediately after the death of his father, he made application for compassionate appointment on 11^th October, 2006. Such application of the applicant was rejected by the 1^st respondent vide order dated 13^th May, 2008. Aggrieved by such order dated 13^th May, 2008, the applicant approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 6088 of 2014. This Court, vide order dated 26^th July, 2016 passed in the Special Civil Application No. 6088 of 2014 quashed and set aside the order dated 13^th May, 2008 and directed the respondents to reconsider the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order, without taking into consideration the ground and aspect of receipt of family pension and terminal benefits.

¶22

It is not in dispute that, in compliance of the directions issued by the learned single Judge in the order dated 26^th July, 2016, the respondent authority has passed the order dated 13^th October, 2016, recording reasons for rejection of the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment.

¶23

In this application, it is argued by the learned counsel

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

C/MCA/621/2017 ORDER

¶26

for the applicant that, as per the policy prevailing at

¶27

present, the applicant is entitled to lump sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment. However, the claim of the applicant for extending the financial benefits is not considered by the respondents while passing the order dated 13^th October, 2016.

¶28

Whether consideration of the claim of the applicant is in accordance with the policy or not and the reasons recorded by the respondents in the order dated 13^th October, 2016 are correct or not, cannot be gone into in this application filed under the Contempt of Courts, Act, 1971. From a perusal of the order dated 13^th October, 2016, it is clear that, in compliance of the order of this Court dated 26^th July, 2016, the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment is rejected by the respondents.

¶29

In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the respondents have not deliberately and intentionally violated the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 26^th July, 2016, attracting the provisions under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

C/MCA/621/2017 ORDER

¶32

Granting liberty to the applicant to question the order dated 13th October, 2016 before appropriate forum, if the applicant intends to do so, this application is dismissed.

¶33

(R.SUBHASH REDDY, CJ)

¶34

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)

¶35

A.M. PIRZADA

¶36

Page 4 of 4

Rushi Ashwin Kumar Shukla v. Raj Gopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rushi Ashwin Kumar Shukla v. Raj Gopal

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

Diyora Bhanderi Corporation Vs Sarine Technologies Ltd.

Bhupendrasinh Vechatbhai Khant Vs Vikramsinh Ramsinh Dindor

State of Gujarat Vs Rajeshbhai Lalkabhai Bhabhor

Siddiquebhai Kasambhai Choksi Vs State of Gujarat

Sindhva Manubhai Bhikhabhai Vs Sunaina Tomar Secretary

Chaitanya Gyandevprasad Joshi Vs Sanjay Prasad