Gujarat High Court
Mahendra Namdev Tagde vs State Of Gujarat on 1 April, 2022
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/13957/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13957 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
MAHENDRA NAMDEV TAGDE
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS RATNA VORA(2251) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
MR KRUTIK PARIKH, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 01/04/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Ms. Ratna Vora, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr.
Krutik Parikh, learned AGP for the respondent State.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Parikh, learned AGP waives service
of notice of rule on behalf of respondent State. With the consent of the
C/SCA/13957/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2022
learned advocates for the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing
today.
3. The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated
14.05.2016 by which the petitioners were relieved from their duties. The
petitioners have prayed for grant of reinstatement with continuity of
service and full backwages.
4. Ms. Ratna Vora, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that
the order dated 14.05.2016 is bad inasmuch as the same is unjustified.
Ms. Vora, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the issue
involved in the present petition is covered by decisions of the co-ordinate
bench of this court rendered in Special Civil Applications No. 14852 of
2018 and 16196 of 2016.
5. Having considered the case of the petitioners and having heard
learned advocates for the parties, it is not in doubt that a similar issue has
been decided by the co-ordinate bench of this court in Special Civil
Application No. 14852 of 2018 vide order dated 09.12.2019. Relevant
portion of the order reads as under:
"5.6 The virtual similar facts in the present case and those
involved in Harishkumar Dhaniram Vaishya (supra)
have one important distinction. In Harishkumar
Dhaniram Vaishya (supra), the termination order
was passed in the year 2016 and the said petitioner
challenged the same by filing the petition in 2016 itself.
In the present case, however, the termination order of the
year 2016 came to be challenged after two years in the year
2018. In view of this difference of bearing, the Court is not
inclined to grant backwages to the petitioner while
directing reinstatement with continuity in service.
C/SCA/13957/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2022
Resultantly, the petitioner shall not be entitled to
receive any salary for the interregnum.
6. The order dated 09.09.2016 passed by the District
Commandant, Home Guards, Ahmedabad is hereby set
aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated
in service on his original post with continuity of service
but not salary shall be paid to him for the intervening period.
7. The petition stands allowed in the said terms. Rule made
absolute to the said extent."
6. In view of the above position of law, the present petition is also
required to be allowed in the above terms.
7. Accordingly, the impugned communication dated 14.05.2016 is
hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate
the petitioners in service on their original post with continuity of service.
It is clarified that no salary shall be paid to the petitioners for the
intervening period. Petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
DIVYA
