Gujarat High Court
Kishorebhai Babudas Puranverari vs State Of Gujarat on 24 March, 2021
Bench: Gita Gopi
C/MCA/227/2021 ORDER
IN THEHIGHCOURTOF GUJARATAT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC.CIVILAPPLICATIONNO. 227 of 2021
In
R/SPECIALCIVILAPPLICATIONNO. 13431of 2018
==============================================================================
KISHOREBHAIBABUDASPURANVERARI
Versus
STATEOF GUJARAT
==============================================================================
Appearance:
MRSAMIRAFZALKHAN(3733)for the Applicant(s)No. 1
for the Opponent(s)No. 1,2,3
==============================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date: 24/03/2021
ORALORDER
(PER: HONOURABLEMS. JUSTICESONIAGOKANI)
1. This is an application preferred by the applicant, original petitioner
of Special Civil Application No.8890 of 2018, who is seeking invocation
of the jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act inasmuch as the
common judgment and order passed by this Court on 21.09.2020 in the
said matter and Special Civil Application No.13431 of 2018 has not been
complied with till date.
2. We notice that the applicant was appointed as a Pump Man on
14.07.1983 and thereafter, was transferred to Agi Industrial Area, GIDC,
Rajkot in the year 1987. He served with the GIDC for 24 long years.
After his retirement, his retiral dues, which included the amounts of CPF,
Gratuity, etc., were with-held by the opponents, essentially and
predominantly on the ground that the applicant continued to be in illegal
C/MCA/227/2021 ORDER
occupation of the residential quarters, which was allotted to him as part of
the amenities available to the employees of GIDC. The allocation of the
residential quarter was in the wake of a policy framed vide Notification
dated 27.04.1998. The GIDC amended the said policy by Notification
dated 18.10.2002 by which it was resolved that all Class-IV employees,
who were in service and were residing in the quarters, could purchase the
quarters in which they were residing on hire purchase system
permanently.
3. The communication of the GIDC dated 28.01.2016 directing the
vacation of the quarter was challenged by the applicant by way of Special
Civil Application No.1753 of 2016, which resulted in favour of the
applicant. No Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the said order
till date.
4. We notice that the applicant herein had moved this Court by way
of Special Civil Application No.8890 of 2019 and by common order
passed in Special Civil Application No.8890 of 2019 and 13431 of 2018,
the Court had quashed and set aside two of the orders passed by the
GIDC dated 30.04.2018 and 31.07.2018. The observations made in paras
- 29 & 30 of the said judgment reads thus:
"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the orders dated
30.4.2018 and 31.7.2018 are hereby quashed and set aside and
GIDC is directed to forthwith release the retiral dues to the
petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of the
judgment together with interest @ 6% on the unpaid amount of
retiral dues from the date it had fallen due.
30. Clearly, the petitioners have not been paid the retiral dues
for no fault of theirs. Besides GIDC withheld the same without any
authority of law compelling the petitioners to approach this Court
C/MCA/227/2021 ORDER
seeking their legitimate claim. Accordingly, the petitions are
allowed with costs of Rs.5,000/- each to be paid to the petitioners
by GIDC within a period of six weeks from the date of the
judgment. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. "
5. Since no dues have been paid till date and since Letters Patent
Appeal No.914 of 2020 is already moved and the same is said to be
coming up for hearing on 28.04.2021 and Letters Patent Appeal No.926
of 2020 arising out of 13431 of 2018 has also been preferred, we are of
the view that no indulgence is necessary at this stage. The opponents
would have the right to challenge the judgment and order of the learned
Single Judge. Therefore, this application is not being entertained at this
stage. However, if the directions that may be made by the appellate
Bench in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals are not observed or
complied with by the opponents, if, in case the appeals are decided
against the applicant, then after the stipulated time period for compliance,
the applicant shall be at liberty to request for revival of this petition. With
the above observations, the application stands disposed of.
( SONIA GOKANI,J )
( GITA GOPI, J )
PRAVIN KARUNAN
