Gujarat High Court
District Development Officer Junagadh vs Rajeshkumar Mershibhai Vala on 29 January, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/119/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 119 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6147 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 119 of 2025
==========================================================
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER JUNAGADH
Versus
RAJESHKUMAR MERSHIBHAI VALA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS VRUNDA SHAH AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
MR MJ MEHTA(5797) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR NANDISH H SHAH(11330) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR SAURABH J MEHTA(2170) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 29/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. In the first session, when the matter was called out learned advocate Mr. Mithil Mehta appearing for the respondent-workman has pointed out the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.3972 of 2020, which has been further confirmed by the Division Bench vide order dated 20.06.2024 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.528 of 2024.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Rajesh M.Chauhan appearing on behalf of Mr. H.S. Munshaw was specifically handed over the present orders in order to take instructions, as learned advocate Mr. Mithil Mehta had categorically mentioned that the issue raised in the present Letters Patent Appeal is squarely covered. However, the statement made by learned advocate Mr. Mehta is not controverted.
Page 1 of 2 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 04:27:49 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/119/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined
3. The present Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865 is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 14.10.2024, wherein the learned Single Judge while allowing the captioned writ petition has passed the order in terms of the orders passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeals and Special Civil Applications. The same are referred in the final order. Thus, the issue raised in the present appeal is no more res integra. The issue is well settled by various judgments of this Court including the one, which has been cited before us.
4. Hence, we do not find any merits in the present Letters Patent Appeal. The same is hereby rejected.
5. It is reported by learned advocate Mr. Mehta appearing for the respondent-workman that despite the aforesaid order, he has not been reinstated.
6. Under the circumstances, the appellant shall reinstate the respondent - workman within a period of four weeks, failing which, it will be open for the respondent-workman to claim back-wages from the date of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
7. As a sequel, the connected Civil Application stands disposed of.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) (GITA GOPI,J) Pankaj /12 Page 2 of 2 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 04:27:49 IST 2025