Gujarat High Court
Krushnabhai Ramabhai Desai vs Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd on 15 July, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7754/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7754 of 2025
==========================================================
KRUSHNABHAI RAMABHAI DESAI
Versus
MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD
==========================================================
Appearance:
PRITHU PARIMAL(9025) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR VIRAL J DAVE(5751) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 15/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Prithu Parimal appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Viral Dave appearing on behalf of respondent.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks for grant of first higher grade pay w.e.f. 31.05.2004.
3. Considering the submissions made by learned advocate Mr.Parimal and learned advocate Mr.Dave, it would appear that while the petitioner was facing a criminal prosecution and whereas, while the petitioner had been acquitted therein, the request for grant of first higher grade pay was not considered in view of the fact that the State had preferred an acquittal appeal against the order passed by the learned Trial Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:56:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7754/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined Court i.e. Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Sabarkantha at Mosada (Sabalpur) in Special (A.C.B.) Case No.09/1998. 3.1. It would appear that though the acquittal appeal also had been rejected vide judgment dated 11.02.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.1731/2004 by this Court, yet, the grievance being raised is that the respondents have not yet considered the case of the present petitioner. It also appears that repeated representations have been made by the petitioner and whereas, while the petitioner has retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation on 29.02.2020, yet, as of now, the request of the petitioner has not been acceded to.
4. Having regard to the above position, since there has not been any application of mind by the respondents as regards the request of the petitioner, at the first instance, directing the respondents to decide the request of the petitioner and thereafter permitting the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy, would meet with the ends of justice. Hence, the following directions:-
(i) The petitioner to prefer a fresh representation to the Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:56:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7754/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined respondent within a period of fifteen days from today for the grievance raised in the present petition.
(ii) The respondent herein shall decide the representation preferred by the present petitioner within a period of sixty days from the receipt thereof. In case the request of the petitioner is acceded to, appropriate benefits shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of thirty days thereafter. It is further clarified that in case the request of the petitioner is not acceded to, then the respondent shall pass a reasoned order and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner.
(iii) It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter and the respondents shall take an appropriate decision strictly in accordance with law.
5. With the above observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) Bhoomi Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:56:18 IST 2025