Dismissed

State of Gujarat v. Harikrishna Chandulal Trivedi

Gujarat HC28 Mar 2022LPA/532/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an intra-court appeal regarding pension benefits. The court held that the Single Judge's order upholding the respondent's eligibility for a pension scheme was correct and had been confirmed by the Supreme Court, allowing no ground for interference.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal and connected Civil Application are disposed of; respondent governed by confirmed coordinate bench judgment.

State of Gujarat Vs Harikrishna Chandulal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gujarat HC (2022)

¶1

C/LPA/532/2017 ORDER DATED: 28/03/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 532 of 2017

¶4

¶5

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15330 of 2015

¶6

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

¶7

STATE OF GUJARAT & 4 other(s) Versus

¶8

HARIKRISHNA CHANDULAL TRIVEDI

¶9

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

¶10

MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5

¶11

MS FALGUNI D UPADHYAYA(2280) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

¶15

Date : 28/03/2022 ORAL ORDER

¶16

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

¶17

1. Heard Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Ms. Falguni D. Upadhyaya, learned advocate appearing for the respondent– original petitioner.

¶18

2. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 3.2.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.15330 of 2015, whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to direct the appellants to grant benefit of pension scheme to the opponents in view of Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984, the appellants

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

C/LPA/532/2017 ORDER DATED: 28/03/2022

¶21

are before us with this intra-Court Appeal
under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Learned
advocates appearing for the respective parties
jointly submitted that the issue involved in
this Appeal is similar to issue decided by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Letters
Patent Appeal No.86 of 2020 arising out of
Special Civil Application No.15059 of 2015,
decided on 20.1.2020. Felt aggrieved, the
appellants preferred Special Leave Petition
(C) No.9615 of 2020 which came to be dismissed
along with Civil Appeal No.9018 of 2016, Civil
Appeal No.531 of 2017 and SLP (C) No. Diary
No.39277 of 2019 by the Apex Court vide order
dated 17.12.2021, confirming the view taken by
the learned Single Judge as well as the
Coordinate Bench of this Court.

¶22

3.Learned advocates pointed out that in the case
on hand also, the respondent–original
petitioner was appointed after 1.4.1982 and
hence, the issue is squarely covered by the
decision of the Coordinate Bench of this
Court, as aforesaid. The respondent – original
petitioner is entitled to similar benefits as
directed by the learned Single Judge in this
petition as well.

¶23

4. Considering the aforesaid admitted position, we do not find any ground for interfering with the impugned judgment and order rendered by

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

C/LPA/532/2017 ORDER DATED: 28/03/2022

¶26

the learned Single Judge. The judgment and
order dated 20.1.2020 passed by the Coordinate
Bench in LPA No.86 of 2020 is confirmed by the
Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (C)
No.9615 of 2020 along with Civil Appeal
No.9018 of 2016, Civil Appeal No.531 of 2017
and SLP (C) No. Diary No.39277 of 2019 by an
order dated 17.12.2021.

¶27

5. The present respondent – original petitioner shall be governed by the same judgment. As provided by the Apex Court, the compliance of the directions issued by this Court as confirmed by the Apex Court shall be effected within a period of two months from today.

¶28

6. With above, present Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of. As the main Appeal is disposed of, connected Civil Application, if any, would not survive and the same stands disposed of.

¶29

(R.M.CHHAYA,J)

¶30

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)

¶31

Maulik

¶32

Page 3 of 3

State of Gujarat v. Harikrishna Chandulal Trivedi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Gujarat v. Harikrishna Chandulal Trivedi

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

Schol of Engineering (R K University) through Director Vs Jignesh Shambubhai Vishpara

State of Gujarat Vs Dolatbhai Ranchodbhai Patel

Legal Heirs of Deceased Parth & Father of Minor Shaishav & Vs Patel Daud Vali (Tailor)

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Himmatbhai Jamalbhai

The District Primary Education Officer, Vs Bhaveshkumar Bhanubhai Parmar

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Himmatbhai Jamalbhai