State Of Gujarat vs Parshottambhai Laljibhai Parmar
2023 Latest Caselaw 4651 Guj

       C/LPA/683/2023                               ORDER DATED: 19/06/2023




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 683 of 2023
             In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2858 of 2020
                                   With
                CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2023
               In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 683 of 2023
==========================================================
                               STATE OF GUJARAT
                                     Versus
                        PARSHOTTAMBHAI LALJIBHAI PARMAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. SHRUTI DHRUVE, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR AS ASTHAVADI(3698) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
           and
           HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                                Date : 19/06/2023

                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)

Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shruti Dhruve for the appellant-State and learned advocate Mr. A.S.Asthavadi for the respondent.

2. The present Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment and order dated 6.4.2022 of learned single Judge. The issue addressed by learned single Judge was whether the order impugned in the main petition imposing penalty of 100% cut in the pension dated 10.12.2019 passed against the petitioner was in consonance with the principles of natural justice more particularly in compliance of resolution dated 5.8.2003 read with resolution of the General Administrative Department dated 18.3.1986.

C/LPA/683/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2023

3. Learned single found that although the natural justice could be said to have been complied with in the facts of the case, the parameters indicated in circular/resolution dated 18.3.86 were not followed, more particularly when the appeal against the conviction was filed and the same remained pending before the criminal court.

3.1 Learned single Judge issued the following final directions,

"Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.12.2019 only on the ground of it having been passed without application of mind and the relevant circumstances as envisaged under the circular dated 18.03.1986 read with resolution dated 05.08.2003. This however does not preclude the respondent authority to pass a fresh order after considering the response already filed by the petitioner in response to the show-cause notice dated 09.04.2019. The entire exercise shall be completed within ten weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Since the order of reduction of pension is quashed, pending fresh consideration, the petitioner's pension shall be restored for the limited period till passing of the fresh order within the stipulated time."

3.2 Thus, the only order and operative direction learned single Judge passed was of setting aside of the the impugned order dated 10.12.2019 imposing cut of 100% pension on the aforesaid ground, further permitting the respondent authority to pass fresh order after considering the reply filed by the petitioner to show cause notice. While directing exercise was to be completed within stipulated time, it was further ordered by learned single Judge that the pension of the petitioner shall be restored for the limited interregnum.

4. As the above is the only limited compass for consideration in the Letters Patent Appeal, when the appeal was taken up for consideration, learned advocates for the parties stated that the competent authority-the Commissioner of Geological and Mines Department passed order dated

C/LPA/683/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2023

7.3.2023 in compliance of the order 06.04.2022 of learned single Judge, whereby the pension for the interregnum was sanctioned for the petitioner and the same is paid also. Subsequently, the aforesaid order of sanction of payment was also approved by order dated 18.4.2023.

5. Even otherwise, when learned single Judge set aside the order of cut of pension and directed to undertake the exercise afresh by the authorities, the restoration of pension during the intervening period till the fresh exercise was undertaken and concluded, was not only the competent exercise of discretion, but such order could be said to be a necessary consequence in law when the order was set aside.

5.1 It was further stated that the fresh exercise as directed by the learned single Judge has already been undertaken by the competent authority and fresh order of 100% cut in pension is passed. It was stated that the petitioner-respondent herein, proposes to challenge the same.

6. For all the above reasons, judgment and order of learned single Judge is not liable to be interfered with in exercise Letters Patent jurisdiction.

7. The appeal is dismissed.

In view of dismissal of the appeal as above, the Civil Application will not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

(J. C. DOSHI,J) C.M. JOSHI