Gujarat High Court
Jitendrakumar Karsanbhai Pandya vs State Of Gujarat on 1 September, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12070/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12070 of 2025
==========================================================
JITENDRAKUMAR KARSANBHAI PANDYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HB SINGH(2073) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA PATHAK, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 01/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. H.B. Singh on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Pathak on behalf of the respondent - State.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Singh would submit that the case of the present petitioner being squarely covered by decision of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.380/2016 and allied matters dated 29.06.2018, the grievance raised by the present petitioner at this stage could be assuaged if representation which would be preferred by the petitioner relying upon the said judgment may be directed to be decided by the respondents within a specific period of time.
3. Considering the submission made by learned advocate Mr. Singh, since the same appears to be reasonable, the following directions are passed:-
(a) The petitioner, in addition to the representation already preferred, shall prefer fresh representation pointing out how Page 1 of 2 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:16:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12070/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined his case is similar to the case of the workmen in Letters Patent Appeal No.380/2016 and allied matters and whereas, such representation shall be preferred by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today.
(b) Upon such representation being received by the respondents, the same shall be considered and decided by them within a period of eight weeks thereafter, more particularly taking into account the communication of the respondent herein, whereby the proposal in case of the present petitioner is stated to be pending.
(c) It is directed that if the petitioner is similarly situated to the employees in Letters Patent Appeal No.380/2016, then the benefits as made available to the said employees may be passed on to the present petitioner as expeditiously, but not later than eight weeks from the date of decision as per 3(b), as above.
(d) In case the present petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, then it would be open for the petitioner to question the same before appropriate forum in accordance with law.
4. With the above observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of. Needless to clarify that this Court has not entered into the merits of the matter. Direct service is permitted.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) BDSONGARA Page 2 of 2 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:16:56 IST 2025