Allowed

Mokasana Ketankumar Mansukhlal v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC24 Dec 2021LPA/1122/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a letters patent appeal, the High Court set aside an order vacating interim relief due to procedural irregularities. The Court directed the State to maintain the status quo of the employees' services until the matter is fully resolved.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; State directed to maintain status quo of employees' services; connected civil applications will not survive.

Mokasana Ketankumar Mansukhlal Vs State of Gujarat — Service and Employment | Gujarat HC (2021)

¶1

C/LPA/1122/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/12/2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1122 of 2021

¶4

In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2413 of 2019

¶5

With

¶6

CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1122 of 2021

¶7

========================================================== MOKASANA KETANKUMAR MANSUKHLAL

¶8

Versus

¶9

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶10

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

¶11

Appearance:

¶12

MR JAL S UNWALA, SR. ADVOCATE with MR R.K.MANSURI(3205) for the Appellants MRS MANISHA LAVKUKAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER with MS NIDHI VYAS, AGP for the Respondents

¶13

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

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H.VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

¶15

Date : 24/12/2021

¶16

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H.VORA)

¶17

Notice returnable in appeal as well as civil application returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service of notice for the respondents.

¶18

By way of present Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellants – original petitioners challenge order dated 20.12.2021 passed in Civil Application (for vacating interim relief) No.1 of 2021 in Special Civil Application No.2413 of 2019, whereby the learned Single Judge vacated the interim relief granted vide order dated 22.2.2019 in captioned writ petition directing to maintain status quo with regard to service condition of the present appellants.

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

C/LPA/1122/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/12/2021

¶21

3, We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Jal S. Unwala with learned advocate Mr. Mansuri for the appellants and learned Government Pleader Mrs. Manisha Lavkumar with learned AGP Ms. Nidhi Vyas for the respondents.

¶22

Without going into the merits of the matter at this stage, we have noticed that the civil application preferred by the State was listed before the learned Single Judge for admission on 20.12.2021. It is stated at bar that neither learned advocate for the original petitioners nor the original petitioners were present before the Court for hearing of the civil application (for vacating interim relief). However, in para 1 and 2 of the order, it is recorded by the learned Single Judge that present appellants waived service of notice of rule on behalf of the opponents in the civil application. Whereas in para 2 of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge recorded that learned advocate for the opponents Mr. RK Mansuri was not present in both the sessions. We have failed to understand as to whether the civil application is heard in presence of learned advocate appearing for the present appellants or not in view of such observation made with regard to presence of learned advocates appearing for the original petitioners in whose favour interim relief was granted on 22.2.2019 and the same was operative till date of filing of Civil Application (for vacating interim relief) No.1 of 2021 and kept to be heard and decided on the same date of admission hearing i.e. on 20.12.2021.

¶23

It is reported by the appellants herein that around 500 to 600 similarly situated employees have filed in all 35 writ petitions and the same are pending, wherein also the State has

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

C/LPA/1122/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/12/2021

¶26

preferred civil applications for vacating interim relief and the same are pending for hearing. In view of such position, we request the learned Single Judge to hear the present Civil Application (for vacating interim relief) No.1 of 2021 afresh as expeditiously as possible and after giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides.

¶27

At this stage, learned Government Pleader informed us that the State has passed the order on 22.12.2021 relieving the appellants from the services with immediate effect and the same has been forwarded to the appellants by RPAD. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Unwala states at bar that the appellants herein have not received any such communication till this order is passed. Under the circumstances, we direct the respondent State to maintain status quo position qua the services of the employees as existing at the time of passing of present order.

¶28

With this observation and direction, present Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently connected civil application will not survive.

¶29

(S.H.VORA, J)

¶30

(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)

¶31

SHEKHAR P. BARVE

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Mokasana Ketankumar Mansukhlal v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mokasana Ketankumar Mansukhlal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thakor Minaben D/O Prahladbhai W/O Thakor Alkeshaji Amaratji Vs State of Gujarat

Chauhan Ajaykumar Gulabji Vs State of Gujarat

Dhavalkumar Ruzveltbhai Katara Vs State of Gujarat

Umrani Shahidbhai Gulamhusen Vs State of Gujarat

State of Gujarat Vs Ghanshyambhai Hirjibhai Sonagara

State of Gujarat Vs Ghanshyambhai Hirjibhai Sonagara