Gujarat High Court
Aarti Vajubhai Thummar vs Secretary Arunkumar Solanki on 4 January, 2023
Bench: Niral R. Mehta
C/MCA/857/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/01/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 857 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 188 of 2021
==========================================================
AARTI VAJUBHAI THUMMAR
Versus
SECRETARY ARUNKUMAR SOLANKI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR KRUTIK PARIKH AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 04/01/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
The two petitioners - applicants herein in their petitions
had prayed for grant of benefits of State Government
Resolution dated 17.10.1988 adopted by the Forest
Department as per Circular dated 15.9.2014. The applicants
have been serving as System Analyst.
2. The learned Single Judge allowed the petitions passing
the following directions :
"16. It will be in the fitness of the things to direct the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for
extending the benefits of Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988 and 15.9.2014 as per the law enunciated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PWD Employees' Union
& Ors., reported in (2013) 12 SCC 417 and subsequent
judgment in the case of PWD and Forest Union and Ors,
C/MCA/857/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/01/2023
reported in 2019 (3) Scale 462.
17. On the basis of their having completed the number of
working days which shall be on the basis of they having
working as Daily Wagers, their case shall be considered. Such
exercise shall be completed by the respondents preferably
within a period of Eight Weeks from the date of receipt of the
order."
2.1 The Letters Patent Appeal filed against the order of the
learned Single Judge came to be dismissed with following
observations :
"6.0. In light of the aforesaid, therefore, we do not find any
reason to interfere with the directions issued by the learned
Single Judge. We are in total agreement with the observations
and directions given by the learned Single Judge. No case for
interference is made out. However, time to carry out the
direction as provided in para 17 of the order of the learned
Single Judge is granted till 31.5.2022. Appeal is dismissed. As
the appeal is dismissed, connected Civil Application also stands
dismissed. No costs."
2.2 Thereafter, the State had preferred Special Leave
Petition before the Apex Court, which too failed.
3. It is in respect of the aforesaid directions confirmed as
above that non-compliance was alleged and the jurisdiction of
this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was
invoked.
4. In response to the notice, the respondent authorities
appeared and filed affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the
respondent - the Range Forest Officer, Junagadh.
4.1 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Manan Mehta
C/MCA/857/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/01/2023
invited attention of the Court to the contents of the said
affidavit which included annexed with it the two orders dated
11.11.2022 separately passed in respect of two applicants,
whereby the directions of the order of the learned Single
Judge confirmed as above came to be complied with.
5. On perusal and reading of the said order, it is provided
that since the petitioners concerned have been found to have
served 240 days during the past years, they will be given the
benefits of the Resolution on the basis of length of service of 5
to 10 years.
5.1 When juxtaposed with the directions of the learned
Single Judge sought to be complied with, the aforesaid order
amounts to compliance of the said directions.
6. Learned advocate for the petitioner Mr.Dipak Dave,
however, vehemently submitted that it is not clear as to what
extent of benefit would flow from the aforesaid directions. He
further submitted that the petitioners have not been taken in
service after the directions of the learned Single Judge.
7. The Court finds that issue about joining service is not
dealt with in the directions sought to be complied with. In any
case, after making grievance that the petitioners were not
permitted to join, learned advocate for the petitioners stated
that the petitioners would report for the duty at the office
concerned on 5.1.2023. As far as other grievance about extent
of the benefits to flow from the orders dated 11.11.2022
C/MCA/857/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/01/2023
passed in compliance of the directions, it is to be observed
that hairsplitting of directions could not be made the ground
for contempt.
8. Even otherwise, learned Assistant Government Pleader
stated that for the purpose of implementation of the aforesaid
orders, the departments concerned are already instructed by
sending copy of the orders to such departments for its
execution.
9. The applicants are at liberty to proceed in accordance
with law in respect of the grievance touching the merits part
of the aforesaid orders dated 11.11.2022.
10. In the aforesaid view and the situation obtaining, we
close the present contempt proceedings. Notice is discharged.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
V.J. SATWARA
