Gujarat High Court
Harendrasinh Jashvantsinh Chauhan vs States Of Gujarat on 23 April, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/23036/2022 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 23036 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 23036 of 2022
=====================================================
HARENDRASINH JASHVANTSINH CHAUHAN
Versus
STATES OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA DAVDA ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 23/04/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. By way of Civil Application, the applicant - original petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents to consider and decide representations dated 3.11.2020, 9.11.2021, 7.2.2022 and 23.3.2022 preferred by the applicant expeditiously.
2. By way of the main writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for grant of higher pay scale on completion of prescribed period of services as per G.R. dated 16.8.1994 and other consequential reliefs. Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:20:32 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/23036/2022 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined
3. Today, learned advocate Mr. Shivam Majmudar appearing for the petitioner has submitted that if the petitioners' representation dated 3.11.2020 is directed to be decided, that would serve the purpose of the petitioner as rest of the representations were made to the authorities which were not empowered to decide the issue. He further submitted that if the above direction is issued, the petitioner will not press the prayers made in the writ petition with a liberty to file fresh petition in case the outcome of the representation is against the petitioner. He further submitted that if the above direction is issued, the main matter as well as civil application may be disposed of. He further submitted that though the issue is covered by judgment dated 29.6.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.380 of 2016, the respondents are not considering the representation in light of above decision and therefore, the respondents may be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 3.11.2020 at the earliest and to pass a speaking order as the issue is covered.
Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:20:32 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/23036/2022 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda appearing for the respondents though submitted that the petitioners case is different than the case of the petitioners of Letters Patent Appeal No.380 of 2016. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Davda further submitted that as far as the representation dated 3.11.2020 is concerned, if the respondents are directed to decide the same in accordance with law, the Court may issue suitable direction.
5. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record. As learned advocate Mr. Majmudar appearing for the petitioner at the time of dictation submitted that the issue is squarely covered in view of observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in paragraph No.21.1 of Letters Patent Appeal No.380 of 2016 dated 29.6.2018, this Court may direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation in light of observations made in paragraph No.21.1 of the above decision and in case if, the respondents do not grant the benefits as prayed for to the petitioner, the respondents may Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:20:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/23036/2022 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined be directed to pass a reasoned order as to how the observations made in the above decision rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.380 of 2016 is not applicable in the facts of the present petitioner.
6. In view of above, the respondents are directed to decide the petitioners representation dated 3.11.2020 at the earliest but in any case before 31.7.2025 and in case if, the respondents takes a view that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits prayed for by him in light of decision referred herein above, the respondents are directed to pass a reasoned order and to assign reasons as to how the decision dated 29.6.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.380 of 2016 is not applicable in case of present petitioner. Needless to say that in case if, the decision goes against the petitioner, it will be open for the petitioner to challenge the same.
7. With the aforesaid observations, without entering into the merits of the matter, the petition as well as civil application are disposed of. In case the representation of the petitioner is considered Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:20:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/23036/2022 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined positively, in that case, from the date of order, the respondents are directed to extend the benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. Direct service is permitted.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) Pallavi Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:20:32 IST 2025