Gangjibhgai Laljibahi Sagathiya vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 17526 Guj

     C/SCA/16822/2021                               ORDER DATED: 22/11/2021




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16822 of 2021

==========================================================
                        GANGJIBHGAI LALJIBAHI SAGATHIYA
                                     Versus
                               STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DEEPAK P SANCHELA(2696) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MS SURBHI BHATI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                                Date : 22/11/2021
                                 ORAL ORDER

Heard learned Advocate Mr. Deepak Sanchela for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Surbhi Bhati for the respondent-State.

By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge an order dated 15.04.2014, whereby the respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of consequential benefits.

Learned Advocate Mr. Sanchela would submit that the said order had been passed in context of a challenge by the present petitioner to an order of termination passed by the respondents dated 10.11.1994, which had been challenged by the petitioner by filing a Regular Civil Suit No.895 of 1996 before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhavnagar. Learned Advocate Mr. Sanchela would submit that vide a judgment and order dated 30.06.2006, the learned Trial Court had been pleased to allow the Civil Suit preferred by the present petitioner and whereas the petitioner had been directed to be reinstated will all consequential benefits. Learned Advocate Mr. Sanchela would submit that the said judgment and order had been challenged by the State before the learned District Judge, Bhavnangar and

C/SCA/16822/2021 ORDER DATED: 22/11/2021

whereas vide an order dated 13.05.2011, while confirming the judgment and decree, the learned District Judge had modified the same inasmuch as the petitioner was given liberty to approach the respondent authorities for grant of consequential relief and whereas it was directed that the State authorities would grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing any order with regard to the consequential relief. Learned Advocate Mr. Sanchela would submit that while the order of the learned District Court had been challenged before this Court where such challenge failed and ultimately even challenge to the same before the Hon'ble Apex Court had also failed. Learned Advocate would submit that parallelly the petitioner had initiated proceedings for execution of the order and whereas it appears that during such stage, the respondents had issued the order dated 15.04.2014 and whereas relying upon the said order, the Executing Court had come to a conclusion that the decree was duly discharged and whereas the execution applications were rejected. Learned Advocate would submit that the said order had been challenged before this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No. 8652 of 2017 and whereas vide an order dated 31.08.2021, the same had been permitted to be withdrawn. Learned Advocate would submit that while the decree had been satisfied by passing of order dated 15.04.2014 inasmuch as the case of the petitioner for grant of consequential benefits had been considered and rejected by the respondent authorities and whereas learned Advocate would submit that till now, the said order has not been challenged independently on its merits. Learned Advocate would submit that since the petitioner was agitating grievance with regard to decree not being satisfied till this Court, therefore as such there is no delay in challenging the order dated 15.04.2014.

As far as merits of the order dated 15.04.2014 is concerned, learned Advocate would submit that while main ground for rejecting grant of consequential benefits was that the petitioner has not completed his training, vide a Certificate dated 12.07.2019, the competent authority had

C/SCA/16822/2021 ORDER DATED: 22/11/2021

accepted that the petitioner had completed the basic training course which was the requirement. Learned Advocate would further draw the attention of this Court to an order dated 08.02.2017 passed by the respondent No.2 herein, whereby the respondent No.2 has informed learned Advocate for the petitioner that issue with regard to grant of consequential benefits was pending with the State Government and upon the State Government taking any appropriate decision, the same will be informed to the petitioner. Learned Advocate Mr. Sanchela would submit that the respondents are taking diverce stand and whereas, inspite of petitioner having completed the training, the respondents have not granted consequential benefits to the petitioner as directed by the learned Civil Court, which order had been confirmed upto the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Having regard to the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Sanchela, issue Notice to the respondents returnable on 13.12.2021. Learned AGP waives service of notice for the respondent No.1.

Direct service for rest of the respondents is permitted.

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) BDSONGARA