Ratilal Vechatbhai Vaghari Since ... vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 16011 Guj

       C/SCA/15126/2021                                  ORDER DATED: 11/10/2021




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15126 of 2021

==========================================================
       RATILAL VECHATBHAI VAGHARI SINCE DECD. THROUGH LHS
                   SHARDABEN RATILAL DANTANI
                             Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS NIDHI TRIVEDI FOR MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                                Date : 11/10/2021

                                  ORAL ORDER

Heard learned Advocate Ms. Nidhi Trivedi on behalf learned Advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Utkarsh Sharma for the respondent State.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner interalia raises a grievance that inspite of being entitled to benefit of GR dated 5.7.2011 more particularly on account of the husband of the petitioner being expired during the course of service on 9.9.2013 after having served for a period of 33 years yet the respondents are not extending the same to the present petitioner.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Trivedi draws the attention of this Court to a judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 27.12.2018 in Special Civil Application No. 4231 of 2018 whereby the grievance of the petitioner for not being paid the pensionary benefits by counting the entire length of service from the date of joining till the date of retirement had been challenged the fact of the husband of the petitioner having died on 9.9.2013 was also brought before this Court in the said judgment. Learned

C/SCA/15126/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/10/2021

Advocate would submit that this Court had interalia directed the respondents to calculate the pensionary benefits as payable to them by considering their service from the date of joining. Learned Advocate would further submit as far as applicability of GR dated 5.7.2011 is in so fqar as the controversy raised in the present petition is concerned, the said issue has been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 10.2.2020 in Special Civil Application 30 of 2017 and whereas the said order has also been implemented qua the petitioners therein.

4. Learned Advocate would further submit that the respondents have erroneously rejected the request of the petitioner vide an order dated 27.8.2021, more particularly only without considering the request of the petitioner in its proper perspective.

4.1 Having regard to the same learned Advocate Ms. Trivedi would submit that she may not press the petition at this stage and request that a legal notice which had been sent on behalf of the petitioner may be directed to be decided by the respondent no.1 within a specific period of time, without being influenced by order dated 27.8.2021.

5. This request made by learned Advocate Ms. Trivedi is not opposed by learned AGP Mr. Sharma.

6. Having regard to the same, the respondent no.1 directed to consider the legal notice issued on behalf of the petitioner dated 6.8.2021 in light of the decision of this Court Special Civil Application No. 30 of 2017 such consideration shall be done by respondent no.1 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order without being influenced by order dated 27.8.2021. Outcome of such consideration shall be communicated in writing to the present petitioner.

C/SCA/15126/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/10/2021

7. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter and whereas the respondent no.1 shall take an independent decision in accordance with law more particularly in light of the proposition of law laid down by this Court in the judgments referred to hereinabove.

8. It is further clarified that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of respondent no.1, it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the same before appropriate forum in accordance with law.

9. With this observations and directions this petition is disposed of.

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) MARY VADAKKAN