Gujarat High Court
G.M.Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 7 January, 2025
Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17936/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17936 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
===================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
===================================================
G.M.PARMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
===================================================
Appearance:
MR. SHRIJIT G PILLAI(7937) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. POOJA ASHAR, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
===================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 07/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Shrijit G. Pillai, learned advocate with Ms. Shruti Umesh, learned advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent - State.
2. By way of the present petition, petitioner herein has Page 1 of 20 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jan 23 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:24:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17936/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025 undefined prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 20/21.06.2007 (Annexure-D) and also prayed to direct the respondents to grant the higher grade scales to the petitioner in accordance with the government resolution dated 16.08.1994, as if the services of the petitioner were regularized and has also prayed to revise his retirement benefits and to pay the arrears with 10% interest, with exemplary costs. It is also prayed that the petitioner be granted the higher grade scale, in line with the letter dated 11.04.2005.
3.1. Briefly stated that, petitioner was appointed on 07.12.1965 as a Procurement Supervisor in a fixed pay of Rs.100/- per month and retired on 31.05.2001 as Junior Clerk. The said order dated 15.05.2001, permitting the petitioner to retire from service from 31.05.2001 is produced at Annexure-A. The petitioner herein was serving as a Junior Clerk and retired from service on superannuation, on 31.05.2001. Throughout the services of the petitioner, he remained in the same pay scale, with different designations, though revised from time to time, and was not given the benefit of either promotion or higher Page 2 of 20 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jan 23 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:24:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17936/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025 undefined grade scale at any point of time.
3.2. The petitioner herein preferred Special Civil Application No. 17972 of 2005 before this Court, whereby, it was directed to the respondent authorities to take a final decision, in the matter of grant of higher pay scale of the petitioner, in light of the representation made by the petitioner on 27.12.2003. The petitioner was issued notice, however, despite several adjournments, the respondents did not take any decision. The petition was disposed of by an order dated 01.09.2006 to file a substantive petition. The petitioner made representation on 11.09.2006, reiterating the request, however, no reply was received by the petitioner, and the petitioner was constrained to prefer a petition being Special Civil Application No. 24509 of 2006, which was also disposed of, by directing the respondent no.1- State of Gujarat, to take a decision on the recommendations made by the respondent no.2 by letter dated 11.04.2005 within stipulated time, copy of the order dated 28.11.2006 is duly produced at Annexure-C. The said claim of the petitioner was rejected, by order dated 21.06.2007, on the Page 3 of 20 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jan 23 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:24:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17936/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025 undefined ground that the petitioner failed to satisfy the conditions as laid down in the government resolution dated 16.08.1994. 3.3. The services of the petitioner came to be terminated by order dated 08.11.1982, and the petitioner came to be relieved on 13.12.1982, the said communication dated 13.12.1982 is duly produced at Annexure-H. The petitioner herein thereafter, approached the learned Labour Court, wherein, the said order of termination dated 08.11.1982 was quashed and set aside and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated. The respondents herein challenged the said award passed by the learned Labour Court, by preferring writ petition, which also came to be rejected by order dated 01.09.1993.
3.4. The petitioner was thereafter reinstated in the service in pay scale of Rs.950-1500 on the post of Junior Clerk, by order dated 12.10.1993. Thus, the petitioner was reinstated on the post of Junior Clerk instead of Procurement Supervisor on the same pay scale of Rs.950-1500, though the designation was changed, the pay scale remained the same.
3.5. By way of the present petition, petitioner challenges Page 4 of 20 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jan 23 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:24:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17936/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025 undefined the aforesaid impugned order dated 20/21.06.2007, duly produced at Annexure-D and has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(A) Quashing and setting aside the order dated 20.06.2007 (Annexure-D) and directing the respondents to grant the Higher grade scales to the petitioner in accordance with the Resolution dated 16.08.1994 as if his services were regular and to revise his retirement benefits and to pay the arrears with 10% interest as also exemplary costs.
(B) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the respondent no.2 may be directed to grant the higher grade scale to the petitioner as stated in his letter dt. 11.04.2005. (C) To grant such other and further relief as may be deemed fit."
4.1. Mr. Shrijit G. Pillai, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is governed by the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Jamnagar dated 20.02.1993 in Reference (LCJ) No. 53 of 1991 (Old Reference LCJ No. 813 of 1983), wherein, the retrenchment of the petitioner was held to be illegal and it was held that the petitioner is entitled for the reinstatement with continuity of service. Further that as there was no post of Procurement Supervisor in the employer's department, petitioner was directed to be reinstated to any other post, such as Computer Clerk or any suitable post carrying the pay scale of Rs.950-1500/- in Class-III. It was also directed that the petitioner be reinstated with full back wages in Page 5 of 20 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jan 23 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:24:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17936/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025 undefined one month from the date of the publication of the award, failing which the workman would be entitled to his normal wages from the date of default. The respondent no.2 was also directed to pay Rs.300/- by way of cost by the said award dated 20.02.1993. The said award is duly produced at page-90.
4.2. It is submitted that the respondent in compliance of the award, reinstated the petitioner by order dated 12.10.1993, the said order is duly produced at page-148. Placing reliance on the said order, it is submitted that, the order of termination dated 26.11.1982 is cancelled and consequently the petitioner herein is reinstated in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500/-, as Class-III employee.
4.3. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted that the respondent authority having accepted the said award passed by the Labour Court, on 20.02.1993 and having cancelled the order of termination dated 26.11.1982, the petitioner herein is entitled to be considered for the benefits of the government resolution dated 16.08.1994, which provides for grant of higher pay scales, upon completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of services, in Page 6 of 20 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jan 23 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:24:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17936/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025 undefined light of the fact that though the petitioner herein was directed to be reinstated as Class-III employee, in the pay scale of Rs.950- 1500/-, which was that of the post of Procurement Supervisor, from the date of appointment, i.e. from 07.12.1965, till the date of retirement, the petitioner was stagnated and is not granted any higher pay scales nor petitioner has been promoted and in view thereof, the petitioner herein is constrained to approach this Court for the reliefs as prayed for herein-above. 4.4. It is submitted that, the respondent authorities have erred in not considering the petitioner's representation for grant of higher pay scale, in accordance with the government resolution dated 16.08.1994, having accepted the award passed by the learned Labour Court dated 20.02.1993 and having on their own, while reinstating the petitioner by order dated 12.10.1993, cancelled the order of termination dated 26.11.1982. 4.5. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that, in absence of the order dated 26.11.1982 terminating the services of the petitioner and the petitioner herein having been reinstated in service by order dated Page 7 of 20 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jan 23 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:24:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17936/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025 undefined 12.10.1993, the services rendered by the petitioner herein from the initial date of appointment, i.e. 07.12.1965 till the date of retirement, is required to be considered, as continuous service and the benefits that are accrued, out of the services rendered for the aforesaid period, be granted to the petitioner. 4.6. It is submitted that the pay scale of the petitioner of Rs.260-400/- was revised to Rs.950-1500/- from 01.01.1986 and was further revised to Rs.3050-4590, from 01.01.1996. The petitioner remained in the same pay scale from 01.06.1967. The petitioner herein is therefore entitled to the benefits of the higher pay scales, as per the government resolution dated 16.08.1994. It is submitted that, while passing the impugned order, the respondent authority has erred in declining the petitioner's representation, wherein, respondent authority has considered the case of the petitioner from 12.10.1993, wherein, petitioner herein was appointed as Junior Clerk on the pay scale of Rs.950-1500/-. It is submitted that the petitioner's service is required to be considered as continuous service, in light of the award passed by the Labour Court dated 20.02.1993, However, it is erroneously Page 8 of 20 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jan 23 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:24:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17936/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025 undefined considered from 12.10.1993 and the petitioner is declined the benefits of the government resolution dated 16.08.1994 on the ground that petitioner is superannuated on 31.05.2001 and in view thereof, in absence of completion of 9 years, the petitioner could not be granted the said benefits.
5.1. Ms. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submitted that, no error could be said to have been committed by the respondent authority, on the ground that the respondent authority has duly complied with the award passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar, whereby, the petitioner was absorbed on Class-III post in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500/- from 12.10.1993. The petitioner was not on a continuous service on the particular post, and therefore, would not be entitled to the benefits of the government resolution dated 16.08.1994.
5.2. It is also submitted that, the petitioner was originally employed in a cadre and was later transferred / absorbed in another cadre, although, with identical pay scale, his prior services, before such transfer of cadre, are such that they shall Page 9 of 20 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jan 23 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:24:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17936/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025 undefined not be considered for the purpose of grant of benefits of the higher pay scale. It is submitted that, the petitioner was appointed as Procurement Supervisor in 1965, later on, pursuant to the orders passed by the Court from time to time, was reinstated in the cadre of Junior Clerk in 1993. Thus, at the time of assessing his eligibility for the purpose of conferment of benefits of higher pay scales, his earlier services in the cadre of Procurement Supervisor could not be considered. Reliance is placed on Clause-3(11) of the government resolution dated 16.08.1994 and is submitted that the petitioner was not entitled for the higher pay scale, as per the aforesaid clause of the said government resolution.
5.3. It is submitted that, in light of the aforesaid, prayers in the present petition are such that, the same does not require any interference.
6. Mr. Pillai, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, reiterated the contentions raised earlier and submitted that the respondent authority has committed an error in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of the higher pay scale as Page 10 of 20 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jan 23 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:24:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17936/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025 undefined per the government resolution dated 16.08.1994, in light of the fact that the petitioner's service is required to be considered as continuous, in light of the fact that the order of termination dated 26.11.1982 is cancelled by the respondent authority, on their own, while reinstating the petitioner herein. ANALYSIS:
7.1. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it emerges that the petitioner herein came to be appointed as Procurement Supervisor in fixed and consolidated salary of Rs.100/- p.m. in Milk Conservation Project, Rajkot from 07.12.1965. The petitioner herein alongwith other employees of Milk Conservation Project, Rajkot were deputed to work under Rajkot District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited, on deputation, from 21.02.1970. The petitioner was transferred from Rajkot District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited to Gujarat Dairy Development Corporation (T.C.M. Rural Creamery), Junagadh, on deputation, on 25.07.1972. On 19.09.1973, the petitioner's pay fixation of Rs.130-240 was made by office order dated 19.09.1973. The services of the petitioner came to be Page 11 of 20 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jan 23 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:24:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17936/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025 undefined terminated on 08.11.1982 and was relieved from his duties, w.e.f. 13.11.1982. The petitioner approached the Labour Court, whereby, by order dated 18.08.1986, the said order of termination was quashed and set aside in LCR No. 813 of 1983 and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated with continuity of services and full back-wages alongwith costs. Thereafter, Gujarat Dairy Development Corporation (GDDC), filed Misc. Application No. 67 of 1987 before the Labour Court, Rajkot, praying to set aside the ex-parte award dated 18.08.1986. By order dated 29.02.1988, the Labour Court, Rajkot in Misc. Application No. 67 of 1987, set aside the order against GDDC, whereas, award remained operative against the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 vide letter dated 22.07.1988 directed the petitioner to report for duty on the post of Peon at Bhuj, which was not accepted by the petitioner and the petitioner denied the offer of Class-Iv post of Peon. The respondent no.2 preferred Special Civil Application No. 3276 of 1988 challenging the award dated 18.08.1986 passed in LCR No. 813 of 1983, by Labour Court, Rajkot, wherein, by order dated 15.02.1990, it was ordered that the limitation to file restoration application is Page 12 of 20 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jan 23 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:24:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17936/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025 undefined exhausted and it was kept open for the respondent no.2 to file restoration application from the said order. However, restoration application being Misc. Application No. 2 of 1990 was not filed within the scheduled time by the respondent no.2 but was filed on 08.03.1990. The petitioner herein consented to quash and set aside the ex-parte award passed in LCR No. 813 of 1983 by Labour Court, Rajkot and was elected to get the award on merits of the case to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, fresh Reference LCJ No. 537 of 1991 (Old Reference LCJ No. 813 of 1983) came to be filed. On 20.02.1993, the Labour Court, Jamnagar directed the respondent no.2 to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Computer or Clerk or to some other posts in Class-III, carrying the pay scale of Rs.950-1500 with continuity of service and with full back wages alongwith costs. 7.2. It is apposite to refer to Para-10 and 11 of the award dated 20.02.1993, which reads thus:
"10. The defence as raised in the deposition of the employer's side does not sustain. The employer has admittedly not paid retrenchment compensation to the workman. The discharge of the workman therefore amounted to retrenchment, which was effected without following the procedure prescribed by Sec. illegible The workman is, therefore, held to be in continuous service of the employer. The employer has not raised the point Page 13 of 20 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jan 23 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:24:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17936/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025 undefined that it is not an industry. By the name itself, it squarely falls within the definition of industry.
11. The retrenchment of the workman has been found to be illegal, he is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service. If there is no past of Procurement Supervisor in the employer's department, the workman shall be reinstated to any other post such as Computer clerks or any suitable post carrying the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 in class III. Generally, when the retrenchment is found to be illegal, the workman is to be reinstated in the service with all the consequential benefits and full back wages. Usually, I do not award full back wages, but here is a case in which a workman is kept out of employment by the employer for no reason and for no fault on the part of the workman. There is no evidence that the workman was gainfully employed during the period of enforced idleness. I, therefore, award full back wages for the entire intervening period and pass the following final order:
ORDER The Director of Animal Husbandry, Ahmedabad is directed to reinstate his workman Shri G.M. Parmar to the post of Computer, or a Clerk or to some other posts in class III, carrying the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500, with continuity of service and with full back wages within one month from the date of publication of this award. Failing which the workman will be entitled to his normal wage from the date of default.
The Director, Animal Husbandry, Ahmedabad shall also pay Rs.300/- to the workman by way of costs."
7.3. The respondent authority accepted the award passed by the Labour Court dated 20.02.1993 and passed the order dated 12.10.1993 reinstating the petitioner, cancelling the order of termination dated 26.11.1982 on their own. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to clause-1 of the order dated 12.10.1993 (Page-
149) which reads thus:
Page 14 of 20 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jan 23 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:24:24 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17936/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025 undefined "(1) The order of this office dated 26/11/82 mentioned under Read Sr. No. 1, is hereby cancelled and this Mr. Govubha Madhavsinh Parmar is reinstated in service. Moreover, from the date he reports on duty, he is appointed in the office of Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry, Disease Research (Animal) Junagadh as a Junior Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.
950 - 1500/- in public interest. As he is reinstated in service, pay and allowances admissible as per rules shall be paid to him.
The order be implemented with immediate effect." 7.4. The respondent authority passed an order dated 20/21.06.2007, duly produced at Anenxure-C, operative part of the said order reads thus:
"Mr. Govubha M. Parmar was performing duty as Junior Clerk in Class-3 cadre post having pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 from 14/10/93 and he retired on attaining superannuation on 31/5/2001. As Mr. Parmar sought relief from the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat to get benefit of First Higher Grade Pay Scale for Procurement Supervisor service, the Government was directed to take decision as per letter dated 11/4/2005 of the Department vide oral order mentioned under read reference -1. On taking into consideration the letter of the Government mentioned under read reference-2, as the service of Mr. Govubha was irregular and as the provisions of the resolution dated 16/08/04 of the Finance Department as amended from time to time, were not satisfied, benefit of First Higher Grade Pay Scale shall not be given to Mr. Govubha M. Parmar."
7.5. In the course of hearing, this Court is informed that the said award passed by the Labour Court has attained finality and in view thereof, the parties are governed by the award Page 15 of 20 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jan 23 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:24:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17936/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025 undefined passed by the Labour Court dated 20.02.1993. 7.6. Upon harmonious reading of the award dated 20.02.1993 and the order of reinstatement dated 12.10.1993 as referred-above, admittedly, the order of termination dated 26.11.1982 is cancelled and the petitioner herein is reinstated in service.
7.7. In light of the aforesaid, in absence of the order of termination, the continuous service of the petitioner is to be considered, in accordance with the award passed by the Labour Court dated 20.02.1993. This Court has perused the impugned order dated 20/21.06.2007, which is duly produced at Annexure- D, wherein, petitioner's representation seeking the benefits of the government resolution dated 16.08.1994 came to be declined on the ground that the petitioner herein was reinstated in service as Junior Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500/- from 12/14.10.1993 and having superannuated on 31.05.2001, the petitioner herein is not entitled to the benefits of the government resolution dated 16.08.1994.
7.8. Considering the impugned order, it emerges that the Page 16 of 20 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jan 23 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:24:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17936/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025 undefined services of the petitioner is required to be considered, as continuous service, from the date of initial appointment, till the date of superannuation, in light of the award passed by the Labour Court dated 20.02.1993 and the order of reinstatement dated 12.10.1993, wherein, the order of termination dated 26.11.1982 is cancelled, as referred-above. It is now not open for the respondent authority to take a stance that the petitioner's services are required to be considered from 12/14.10.1993, for the reasons, as stated above.
8.1. On the aforesaid ground alone, the impugned order declining the benefits of the government resolution dated 16.08.1994 in view of the fact that the petitioner was reinstated in service, w.e.f. 12/14.10.1993 in Class-III, is required to be interfered with.
8.2. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was regularly appointed employee and in view thereof, the case of the petitioner herein is required to be considered, as that of the regular employee and is governed by the government resolution dated 16.08.1994.
Page 17 of 20 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jan 23 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:24:24 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17936/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025 undefined 8.3. The stance taken by the respondent authority that the petitioner has not passed the departmental examination, in the opinion of this Court, the aforesaid contention raised by the respondent authority does not weigh with the Court, in view of the fact that the order of reinstatement with continuity of services alongwith full back-wages, is duly accepted by the respondent authority and the benefits that accrue, out of the service rendered by the petitioner for the aforesaid period, is required to be considered accordingly.
8.4. In light of the submission made by Mr. Pillai, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, while considering the case of the petitioner, the respondent- State is directed to take into consideration the undisputed fact that the petitioner herein has crossed the age limit of 45 years as on date of 05.07.1991, as per the government resolution dated 16.08.1994, is not required to pass the departmental examination.
POSITION OF LAW:
9. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M/s. Radha Krishan Industries Page 18 of 20 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jan 23 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:24:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17936/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025 undefined vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in AIR 2021 SC 2114. Paragraph 27 of the said decision reads thus:
"27. The principles of law which emerge are that :
(i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well;
(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person;
(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice;
(c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or
(d) the vires of a legislation is challenged;
(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law;
(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and
(vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition.
However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated Page 19 of 20 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jan 23 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:24:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17936/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2025 undefined 20/21.06.2007 (Annexure-D) is quashed and set aside. The respondent authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the receipt of the order. All the consequential benefits that accrued in favour of the petitioner be granted @ 6% interest, in light of the directions issued by this Court, from the date of entitlement till the actual date of release in favour of the petitioner.
The present petition stands allowed, accordingly. Direct service is permitted. Rule made absolute.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) Pradhyuman Page 20 of 20 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jan 23 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:24:24 IST 2025