Remanded

Ramilaben Rameshchandra Trivedi Widow of v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC29 Mar 2022LPA/2179/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an order in which the Single Judge failed to examine the propriety of the appellant's husband's compulsory retirement from police service. The High Court held the impugned order defunct and remanded the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed and set aside; proceedings remanded to the learned Single Judge for rehearing on merits.

Ramilaben Rameshchandra Trivedi Widow of Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gujarat HC (2022)

¶1

C/LPA/2179/2017 ORDER DATED: 29/03/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 2179 of 2017

¶4

In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13006 of 2013

¶5

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

¶6

RAMILABEN RAMESHCHANDRA TRIVEDI WIDOW OF

¶7

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)

¶8

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

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MR PUNIT B JUNEJA(3972) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS DHWANI TRIPATHI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA and

¶13

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

¶14

Date : 29/03/2022 ORAL ORDER

¶15

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)

¶16

1. Heard Mr. Punit B. Juneja, learned advocate for the appellant and Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent–State.

¶17

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 9.3.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application no. 13006 of 2013, the widow of a police constable who was made to compulsory retire vide order dated 31.8.2012, has preferred this intraCourt appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

C/LPA/2179/2017 ORDER DATED: 29/03/2022

¶20

3.The petitioner, by way of a Writ Petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, inter-alia, has prayed for the
following reliefs:-

¶21

“a.This Hon. Court be pleased to
admit and allow this petition;

¶22

b.This Hon. court be pleased to
issue appropriate writ, order or
direction quashing and setting aside
the illegal and arbitrary order
passed by the respondent no.2 dated
31.08.2012, wherein the petitioners
husband was compulsorily retired at
premature age of 55 years, without
any notice, inquiry and without any
reasons warranting the same;

¶23

c.This Hon. court be pleased to
direct the respondent authorities to
consider the petitioners husband on
service as on the date of his death
that is 04.04.2013 and to give all
the consequential benefits to the
petitioner;

¶24

d.This Hon'ble Court be pleased to
grant an appropriate compensation to
the petitioner for the death of her
husband because of the victimization
at the hands of the respondent
authorities;

¶25

e.This Hon. court be pleased to
direct the respondent authorities to
fix the pension payable to the
petitioner in accordance with the law
along with all the consequential
benefits;

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

C/LPA/2179/2017 ORDER DATED: 29/03/2022

¶28

f.Pending admission and final
hearing of this petition this Hon.
Court be pleased to restrain the
respondent authorities from forcing
the petitioners to vacate the
residential quarter allocated to her
husband;

¶29

g.Pending admission and final
hearing of this petition this Hon'ble
Court be pleased to direct the
respondent authorities to make the
payment of family pension payable to
the petitioner;

¶30

h.Ad interim relief in the terms of
para (f) & (g) herein above may
please be granted in the interest of
justice;”

¶31

4.It is a matter of fact that the husband of the
appellant who was working as police constable
died on 4.4.2013 and thereafter, the present
Writ Petition is filed. The learned Single
Judge has in fact not considered the prayers
prayed for and having posed the question
whether the widow can challenge the order of
compulsory retirement of her husband which was
in public interest, has not even dealt with
the very aspect raised in the petition on
behalf of the respondent – State. The aspect
considered by the learned Single Judge to the
effect that had the impugned order not been
passed, then also, the petitioner would have
been entitled to family pension statutorily if
she is getting is not the only question which

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

C/LPA/2179/2017 ORDER DATED: 29/03/2022

¶34

is raised in the petition. Only by mentioning
that there is checkered history and in public
interest, punitive action is taken, is not
sufficient to impose such a penalty. We are of
the opinion that the learned Single Judge
ought to have examined the matter whether the
impugned order of compulsory retirement is
proper or not, which has not been done at all.

¶35

5. In view of the aforesaid, we are left with no other option, but to quash and set aside the impugned order and remand back the proceedings of Special Civil Application no. 13006 of 2013 before the learned Single Judge for its rehearing on merits. The learned Single Judge is requested to rehear the parties and pass a fresh order taking into consideration all the contentions that are raised in the petition. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

(R.M.CHHAYA,J)

¶37

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)

¶38

Maulik

¶39

Page 4 of 4

Ramilaben Rameshchandra Trivedi Widow of v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramilaben Rameshchandra Trivedi Widow of 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

The District Primary Education Officer, Vs Bhaveshkumar Bhanubhai Parmar

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Himmatbhai Jamalbhai

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Himmatbhai Jamalbhai

Manager Vs Ushaben Babulal Shah

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Maheshkumar Babulal Shah

Manager Vs Smitaben Ashwinbhai Patel