Gujarat High Court
Patel Subhadraben Joitaram vs State Of Gujarat on 24 September, 2021
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/LPA/846/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 846 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14861 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 846 of 2021
==========================================================
PATEL SUBHADRABEN JOITARAM
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS TEJAL K SHAH(2719) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, AGP, for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 24/09/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
R.M.CHHAYA)
1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated
04.10.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge (Coram : Hon'ble
Mr.Justice N.V.Anjaria) dismissing the writ petition, the present Letters
Patent Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
2 Heard Ms.Tejal Shah, learned advocate for the appellant. Ms.Shah,
learned advocate, contended that the learned Single Judge has wrongly
come to the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to the Leave
Travel Concession. Ms.Shah, learned advocate, further contended that the
learned Single Judge has not considered as to why the respondent has
C/LPA/846/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2021
passed the order rejecting the letter dated 16.05.2017 regarding her Leave
Travel Concession which is not granted. On the aforesaid grounds, it was
submitted that the appellant is entitled to Leave Travel Concession from
18.05.2013 to 22.05.2013.
3 Mr.Tirthraj Pandya, learned AGP, has opposed this appeal and has
submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly considered the order
passed by the Director of Education which has been passed after
considering the material on record and even after hearing the petitioner it
was contended by Mr.Pandya, learned AGP, that the appeal is
misconceived and the same deserves to be dismissed.
4 We have also perused the order in origin passed by the authorities
of the State government. It is an admitted position that the appellant
remained unauthorizedly absent for 644 days and without permission
Leave Travel Concession came to be claimed from 18.05.2013 to
22.05.2013. Even before the first authority, the appellant herself admitted
the fact that no permission was given and was applied for and that she has
remained on leave unauthorizedly for 644 days. The learned Single Judge
while dealing with the contentions raised in the petition has succinctly
observed thus:
"4 The impugned order after considering the facts of the case
and defence of the petitioner in detail, concluded that the
petitioner discharged her duties in the school from 27.10.2010 to
21.09.2011. However, the petitioner remained absent for 644 days
unauthorisedly and without permission of the management
C/LPA/846/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2021
between period from 22.09.2011 to 17.7.2013. While the petitioner
was absent as above, without any prior permission of management,
she enjoyed Leave Travel Concession benefit between 18.05.2013
to 22.05.2013.
5 Not only the above facts are undisputed, the petitioner
teacher herself vide letter dated 9.7.2017 addressed letter to the
Principal of school/management of the school admitted that she
did not take prior permissioin of the management for enjoying the
Leave Travel Concession. Thus, it is accepted by the petitioner
herself that she availed LTC benefit without prior permission and
during the period when she was unauthorisedly absent. In this
view, Leave Travel Concession benefit was not liable to be
sanctioned for the petitioner in view of the various resolutions of
the State Government. The facts of the case and admission on part
of the petitioner are eloquent by themselves. No case is made out
for granting any relief to the petitioner.
The frivolous and meritless petition is hereby is dismissed.
Notice is discharged."
5 Considering the contentions raised before us, the resolution and the
record and proceedings, we are in complete agreement with the view
taken by the learned Single Judge. No interference is called for. The
appeal is misconceived and the same deserves to be dismissed and is
hereby dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. Connected civil
application also stands dismissed.
(THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA, J)
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
Bimal
