Gujarat High Court
Sindhi Kamrunnisa Ahmedhusen vs State Of Gujarat on 30 July, 2021
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/17927/2017 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17927 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR BREACH OF ORDER) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17927 of 2017
================================================================
SINDHI KAMRUNNISA AHMEDHUSEN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 4 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PRANAV S DAVE(5104) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS.DHARA SHAH for MR SHIVANG M SHAH(5916) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1
MR.SAHIL B. TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR DG CHAUHAN(218) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,5
RONAK D CHAUHAN(7709) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 30/07/2021
ORAL ORDER
[1] It appears that both the petitioner as well
as respondent had filed Special Civil Application
No.21960 of 2005 challenging the judgment dated
03.08.2005 passed in Application No.417 of 1996
by the Secretary, Education Tribunal, whereby the
Tribunal directed Sardar Krushinagar Dantiwada
Agricultural University to pay to the applicant
i.e. present petitioner, the salary at par with
other teachers. The Tribunal also directed the
petitioner to pay differences within a period of
three months, however, the demand for
regularisation was rejected.
C/SCA/17927/2017 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2021
[2] It appears that the aforesaid writ petition
was disposed of vide judgment dated 16.06.2017,
thus:-
"14. Under the circumstances, the only clarification
which can be made by the Court while disposing of the
petition is that the order of interim relief granted by
the Court and/or the statement made by the learned
advocate for the petitioner have come to end with
disposal fo the petition and that therefore, the interim
order would not stand in way of the petitioner to take
appropriate action (as may be required in the facts of
the case) in accordance with law and applicable
regulations. It goes without saying that the petitioner
cannot take any action, much less proposed action except
in accordance with law and applicable regulations.
[3] Thereafter, the present writ petition has
been filed with the following prayer,
13(B). Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the
respondent nos. 1 and 2 to consider the case of the
petitioner for absorption ad regulaisation of service of
the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in the school of
Respondent no.4 or any other grant-in-aid school run and
managed by the respondent no.1 and 2 respectively and
thereby comply with the directions issued in judgment
and order dated 03.08.2005 passed by Gujarat Secondary
Education Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Application No.417 of
1996.
13(C). Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the
respondent no.4 to pay the increments and other
allowances applicable from time to time as has been
given to other teachers of the school ad thereby honour
the statement made before this Hon'ble Court and further
comply with directions issued in judgment and order
dated 03.08.2005 passed by Gujarat Secondary Education
Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Application o.417 of 1996.
[4] By the order dated 29.09.2017, this Court had
directed the respondent to maintain status-quo
C/SCA/17927/2017 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2021
with regard to service of the petitioner The
petitioner by the captioned Civil Application
No.1 of 2017 (old Civil Application No.13224 of
2017) has prayed for disobedience of the interim
order dated 29.09.2017 since, vide order of even
date, the respondent-authorities had terminated
the service of the petitioner. It is the case of
the respondent-authorities that the aforesaid
order passed on 29.09.2017 is before the order
passed by this on same date Court and accordingly
the case of the petitioner was not accepted.
[5] Per contra, learned advocate Ms.Dhara Shah
for Mr.Shivang M. Shah appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid order
was passed after the order of status-quo granted
by this Court and hence, the petitioner was
constrained to file the Civil Application.
[6] Thus, the established fact is that the
service of the petitioner has been terminated by
the order dated 29.09.2017 and the petitioner, as
on today, is not in service.
[7] Learned advocate Ms.Shah requests that since
the aforesaid order is passed, the petitioner
will be filing an appropriate application before
the Tribunal raising all contentions which are
taken in the present petition. He has submitted
C/SCA/17927/2017 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2021
that the issue with regard to the regularisation
of service may also be left open. She has
submitted that the time consumed before this
Court may not be calculated for limitation.
[8] In light of the aforesaid submissions, the
present writ petition and the connected Civil
Application are disposed of with the liberty to
the petitioner to challenge the order dated
29.09.2017 terminating his service before the
Tribunal. It will be open for the petitioner to
claim the benefits as prayed in the captioned
petition also. All the contentions of both the
respective parties are left open. The Tribunal
shall ignore the delay / time consumed before
this Court.
[9] With these directions, the captioned petition
and Civil Application are disposed of. Notice is
discharged.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
NABILA
