Ninaben T Sepai vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 673 Guj

     C/SCA/2027/2011                             JUDGMENT DATED: 25/01/2023




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2027 of 2011


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed               No
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                        No

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of           No
      the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question of            No
      law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
      India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                             NINABEN T SEPAI
                                  Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SALIL M THAKORE(5821) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. SIDDHARTH RAMI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                             Date : 25/01/2023

                             ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India. The prayers sought for by the petitioner are as under:-

"(A) Directing the respondents to restore the order dated 23.7.1993 (Annexure "F") granting the 1st higher grade scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 11.10.1988 and accordingly to modify

C/SCA/2027/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/01/2023

and revise the order dated 15.4.99 and grant the consequential benefits with 6% interest.

(B) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the respondent No.2 may be directed to restore the order dated 23.7.1993.

(C) To grant such and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper."

2. Heard Mr.Shalil Thakore, learned advocate for the petitioner

and Mr.Siddharth Rami, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

the respondent.

3. It is case of the petitioner that the petitioner has rendered the

services over 22 years and thereafter, she has resigned and submitted

her resignation from the post of Principal with effect from 4 th March,

1997 vide communication dated 4.12.1998 which in turns accepted

by the Management by communication dated 7.12.1996. It is case of

the petitioner that though she is otherwise eligible to get the benefit

of Voluntary Retirement Scheme as she has rendered the services of

more than 22 years but, due to some mistake she had tendered her

resignation from the post of Principal and therefore, she should have

get the benefit by considering her resignation as retirement under

C/SCA/2027/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/01/2023

the Voluntary Retirement Scheme.

4. Mr. Thakore, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied

upon the avements made in the petition that the petitioner has

committed mistake. Thereafter, the school has also sent Resolution

to the respondent-authority by communication dated 27.11.2001. He

has further submitted that however, the communication received

from District Education Officer on 21.11.2001 is not in accordance

with the rules. He has further submitted that all the provisions

relating to the service law more particularly the act and rules should

be considered as beneficial provision and should be considered in

favour of the employee/present petitioner. He has further submitted

that since the petitioner has approached the Gujarat Secondary

Education Tribunal vide application no. 135 of 2003 and Tribunal

has also considered her application sympathetically and disposed of

the application with some directions which has yet not complied

with by the concerned authority as per submission of the petitioner

and therefore, he prays that the prayers made in this petition may be

granted by considering that the present petitioner is now reached to

C/SCA/2027/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/01/2023

the age of 81 years and she is facing financial difficulties.

5. Per contra, Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned Assistant Government

Pleader has pointed out from the affidavit-in-reply that the

resignation is submitted on 4.12.1996 which is accepted vide letter

dated 7.12.1996 and even in that letter also the authority concerned

of the Trust of the School has drawn attention of the present

petitioner that your resignation letter is ill advised and also

requested her to reconsider his decisions. Even in this background

and as per submission made by learned AGP, it transpires that on

21.4.2001 the resolution came to be passed by the respondent No.3.

He has further submitted that as per the Government of Gujarat

Resolution's dated 21.12.1971, the petitioner cannot get any benefit

for reconsideration of resignation and can not be considered as

retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. He has further

submitted that there is huge delay of more than 4 years in passing

such resolution by respondent No.3. He has further submitted that

Rule 33 of G.C.S.R. Pension Rule where, the certain extensions laid

down but, case of the petitioner is also not covered under that rule.

C/SCA/2027/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/01/2023

Therefore, he prays to dismiss the present petition as no case is made

out.

6. Considering the rival submissions made by learned advocates

appearing for the respective parties, I found that the petition itself

suffers from delay and latches as in the year 1996 that means

4.12.1996, the petitioner has tendered resignation. The petitioner

was working as Principal so she is expected to aware about the

difference between the word "resignation" and word "retirement" .

Moreover, she has not taken any further steps by approaching the

Government authority immediately after tendering her resignation

till year 2001. It also transpires from the record that the respondent-

school authority has also suggested immediately on 7.12.1996 to the

petitioner to reconsider the decision of resignation. However, the

petitioner has not taken any care. Moreover, the petitioner has

approached the Education Tribunal in the year 2003 and thereafter,

after passage of time, Tribunal has decided her application on

10.1.2006. Even thereafter, also the petitioner has not cared to

pursue the remedy and has filed the present petition on 31.1.2011.

C/SCA/2027/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/01/2023

Considering such delay in pursuing the remedy on the part of the

petitioner and also considering the fact that the petitioner is well

aware about the consequences of the resignation, no case is made out

to grant any relief as prayed in the present petition by exercising

power under Article 226 of Constitution of India, as no arbitrariness

or perversity or illegality found in the action of the respondent -

Government in accepting the resignation and not considering the

case of the present petitioner which seems after thought.

Hence, present petition stands dismissed with no order as to

costs. Rule is discharged

(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) BEENA SHAH