Gulabbhai Bhagubhai Patel vs Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1126 Guj

        C/SCA/6266/2012                                  JUDGMENT




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

        R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6266 of 2012


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
=========================================================

1    Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
     to see the judgment ?

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3    Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
     the judgment ?

4    Whether this case involves a substantial question of
     law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
     India or any order made thereunder ?

=========================================================
               GULABBHAI BHAGUBHAI PATEL
                             Versus
          DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD THRO'
=========================================================
Appearance:
MR BAIJU JOSHI(1207) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JAYANT P BHATT(169) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI

Date : 25/01/2021

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of assailing the order dated 20.03.2012 and sought consequential relief with a ultimate request to remove pay anomaly in case of the petitioner and for

C/SCA/6266/2012 JUDGMENT

fixation of appropriate pay scale.

2. During the course of hearing, it was submitted by learned advocate Mr. Baiju Joshi, for the petitioner that the authority while taking a decision has not extended any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and further in affidavit­in­rejoinder, which has been submitted in the year 2019 in the present proceedings, certain aspects are required to be considered independently by the respondent authority and as such, under the instructions has requested that the petitioner may be permitted to point out all these issues before the authority and the authority may be permitted to take appropriate decision independently without being influenced by the previous decision and while arriving at appropriate decision, the petitioner may be given appropriate opportunity of hearing so as to present his case.

3. To this submission, learned advocate Mr. Jayant Bhatt appearing on behalf of the respondent - company has submitted that initially the decision is taken after proper scrutiny of the record, but if the petitioner is inclined to make a fresh representation, the authority is inclined to extend the opportunity of hearing and would examine whatever particulars be provided to the company in a fresh representation which may be made and learned advocate Mr. Bhatt has submitted that in the said representation in view of the time having been elapsed in the present proceedings, be submitted at the earliest, so that the issue can be resolved as expeditiously as possible.

C/SCA/6266/2012 JUDGMENT

4. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Joshi has further submitted that with a view to make appropriate representation, the petitioner also need to make a request to the respondent - company for providing certain relevant documents and for that purpose, he may be permitted to make a request to the authority concerned. This submission, having not been confronted by learned advocate Mr. Jayant Bhatt, the Court is permitting the petitioner to make such a request as well. As and when such request is made by the petitioner, the same shall be supplied within a period of two weeks.

5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the present petition is disposed of on the following line, which would meet the ends of justice.

5.1. The petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation after receipt of the relevant documents which were demanded from the authority within a period of two weeks thereof and upon receipt of the said representation, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the same independently without being influenced by the previous decision.

5.2. It is made clear that since this petition is disposed of upon aforesaid concurrence, the Court has not examined the merit nor has expressed any opinion and it is expected that a reasoned order be passed in accordance with law by the respondent - company in the aforesaid time schedule.

6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition

C/SCA/6266/2012 JUDGMENT

stands disposed of. Rule is discharged.

(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J) /phalguni/