Nanajibhai Jagjivanbhai Satuniya Vs State of Gujarat… — Property and Title

MR VIJAY L SHAH(6774) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS VIDHI J BHATT(6155) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS VRUNDA SHAH AGP (1) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI Date : 29/01/2021

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

By way of this petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has
prayed for the following reliefs :-

¶15

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to admit the special civil application.

¶16

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to quash and set aside the order dtd 6/8/2011 passed by the committee constituted by the Respondents and direct the Respondents to consider the service of the petitioner as “Non Transferable Employees” and issue Concession rate plot in favor of the petitioner at Gandhinagar immediately.

¶17

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay the entire auction proceedings of the concession rate/public auction plot taken place at Gandhinagar pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this application.

¶18

(D) Cost of this application may be granted in the interest of justice.

¶19

Page 1 of 7

¶20

C/SCA/15472/2011 ORDER

¶21

(E) Such other and further relief in the necessary and interest of justice be granted.”

¶22

2.It is the case of the petitioner that he
served as Stenographer(Grade-III) in respondent No.3
Department for a pretty long period. By virtue of
Government Resolution dated 27.12.2001,the Government
of Gujarat was pleased to introduce a scheme for
allotment of concession rate plot for its employees.
It has been spelt out in the said resolution in
paragraph 4 that those employees who are inclined to
submit an application in their respective parent
department, have to file an affidavit along with a
certificate that their job is non-transferable and
the concerned department had in turn to submit the
application in the office of the Collector within
next 15 days. According to the petitioner, since the
petitioner is entitled, he applied within a period of
30 days by way of an application dated 02.01.2002 in
the prescribed format with a certificate requesting
respondent No.2 to forward to respondent No.1
authority.

¶23

2.1It is the case of the petitioner that
despite the fact that such application had already
been submitted for a pretty long period, no decision
was taken. As a result of this, representations were
made requesting to take appropriate decision. On
03.11.2004, respondent No.4 raised a query that the
certificate issued by the concerned District
Development Officer is not cross-signed by the
Secretary concerned and then, respondent No.2 wrote a

¶24

Page 2 of 7

¶25

C/SCA/15472/2011 ORDER

¶26

negative letter to respondent No.4 on 03.06.2005 by
indicating that the job of the petitioner is
transferable as “transfer on request”. The petitioner
was of the view that he was eligible for allotment of
the plot in question, but the authority on
29.09.2010, rejected the request on the ground that
the job of the petitioner is transferable in nature.

¶27

2.2In view of such decision taken by the
authority, the petitioner approached this Court by
way of Special Civil Application No. 1117 of 2011
wherein by order dated 07.04.2011, this Court was
pleased to direct the respondent committee to take
appropriate decision that as to whether the services
of the petitioner are transferable or non-
transferable after granting appropriate opportunity
to the petitioner. It appears that respondent No.1
thereafter was pleased to reject the request of the
petitioner on 06.08.2011, which has given rise to
filing of present petition.

¶28

3.Heard learned senior advocate Mr. Shalin
Mehta assisted by learned advocate Ms. Vidhi Bhatt
for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government
Pleader Ms. Vrunda Shah for the respondent authority.

¶29

4.Learned senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta
appearing on behalf of learned advocate Ms. Vidhi
Bhatt for the petitioner has vehemently contended
that the petitioner is fulfilling the eligibility
criteria mentioned in the resolution dated 27.12.2001
and as such, his case ought to have been considered.

¶30

Page 3 of 7

¶31

C/SCA/15472/2011 ORDER

¶32

The rejection of the request by respondent No.1 is
nothing, but a clear error committed, which deserves
to be corrected. Learned senior advocate has
submitted that the services of the petitioner is
transferable “on own request transfer”, and the same
would not be considered as his job is transferable
with a view to deprive the petitioner from legitimate
demand pursuant to resolution dated 27.12.2001.
According to Mr. Mehta, the entire controversy is
revolving around the question as to whether the
petitioner's services are transferable or non-
transferable and in view of this, even on previous
occasion, this Court directed vide order dated
07.04.2011 to examine the issue, but the same has not
been properly considered and as such, the reliefs
prayed for in the petition deserve to be considered
by setting aside the impugned order dated 06.08.2011.

¶33

5.As against this, learned Assistant
Government Pleader Ms. Vrunda Shah appearing on
behalf of the respondent authority has submitted a
detailed affidavit-in-reply of respondent No.1
pointing out clearly that the petitioner is not
entitled to seek any benefit. According to learned
AGP, the services of the petitioner are transferable.
In addition to that, learned AGP has drawn the
attention of this Court to the contents of affidavit
along with resolution dated 06.08.2011 wherein the
petitioner's services are transferable and therefore,
the authority has rightly rejected the request. In
addition to this, learned AGP has pointed out the

¶34

Page 4 of 7

¶35

C/SCA/15472/2011 ORDER

¶36

additional affidavit filed on behalf of respondent
viz. Hanumantsinh Jadeja, Resident Additional
Collector, Gandhinagar on page 143 and has
categorically stated that pursuant to previous order
dated 07.04.2011 passed in Special Civil Application
No. 1117 of 2011, a committee came to be constituted
of different departments and after granting
appropriateopportunity,thecommitteehas
categorically come to the conclusion that the
services of the petitioner are transferable and that
report has not been questioned in the present
proceedings which is reflecting on page 156 and as
such, learned AGP has submitted that the authority's
decision is justified and is in accordance with law.
Apart from that, she has also drawn the attention to
one of the decisions delivered by this Court on
09.08.2016 in Special Civil Application No. 2335 of
2002 with Special Civil Application No. 836 of 2004,
wherein the coordinate bench of this Court has
categorically examined this issue in substance vis-a-
vis government resolution in respect of allotment of
the said policy and has come to the conclusion that
the allotment of plots by the State Government to its
employees is a matter of policy decision and the High
Court should not interfere in such policy decision
and no government servant can claim as a right. As a
result of this, the said policy has not been
disturbed. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
After submitting this, learned AGP has also drawn the
attention of this Court to certain relevant averments
made in the affidavit-in-reply and thereby, has

¶37

Page 5 of 7

¶38

C/SCA/15472/2011 ORDER

¶39

vehemently contended that no case is made out by the
petitioner.

¶40

6.Having heard learned advocates appearing
for the respective parties and having gone through
the material on record placed before the Court, it
clearly transpires that the benefit which the
petitioner is asking from the resolution relates to
non-transferable class of employees and such fact is
not in dispute even by the petitioner. The only issue
as to whether the petitioner's service is
transferable or not, for that purpose, pursuant to
the previous order passed by this Court, a committee
came to be constituted in which detailed examination
has taken place with respect to the petitioner's
services and a clear opinion is arrived at that the
petitioner's service is a transferable service and he
is a transferable employee and indisputably, this
report is not questioned by the petitioner. In view
of this situation which is prevailing on record, in
the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made
out by the petitioner since the status of the
petitioner is analyzed by the committee and there is
no other grievance with respect to decision/opinion
of the committee raised by the petitioner and no
agitated as well.

¶41

7.It is further noticed by the Court that the
report of the committee has not been questioned by
the petitioner at any time rather tacitly the same
has been accepted and as such, without much
resistance, has left it to the Court for passing

¶42

Page 6 of 7

¶43

C/SCA/15472/2011 ORDER

¶44

appropriate orders. It is in this circumstance when
the committee's report is clearly opining that the
petitioner's services are transferable, as a result
of it, the petitioner is found to be not eligible for
allotment of plot by the authority. In that
circumstance, this Court is not inclined to
substitute any view and not inclined to exercise the
discretion.

¶45

8.In above view of the matter, the petition
is meritless. The same stands dismissed accordingly.
Rule is discharged.

¶46

(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)

¶47

cmk

¶48

Page 7 of 7

Nanajibhai Jagjivanbhai Satuniya v. State of Gujarat - through Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanajibhai Jagjivanbhai Satuniya v. State of Gujarat - through Secretary

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

Shivam Chaturvedi Vs Central University of Gujarat

Saburiben Tersingbhai Bhuria Vs State of Gujarat through Secretary

Madhuben Wd/O Vinodbhai Mehta Vs Prabhatbhai Jivabhai Patel

Rashtriya Labour Union, through Its, President Shri S.B.Chaudhary Vs State of Gujarat

Lalitbhai @ Lalabhai Dungarbhai Gediya Vs State of Gujarat

Ramanlal Davalbhai Patel Vs Amc