Gujarat High Court
Mahmadhusen Bachubhai Sumra vs Morbi Taluka Panchayat Through ... on 3 November, 2023
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1365/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1365 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4827 of 2023
==========================================================
MAHMADHUSEN BACHUBHAI SUMRA
Versus
MORBI TALUKA PANCHAYAT THROUGH TALUKA DEVELOPMENT
OFFICER
==========================================================
Appearance:
KRISHNAN M GHAVARIYA(8133) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. H.S.MUNSHAW for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date : 03/11/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
While condoning the delay, since the papers of the main Appeal
were available, considering the compass of the controversy with the help
of learned advocate appearing for the appellant, the Registry was directed
to notify the main Letters Patent Appeal by preparing a separate board
today itself, to be taken up for final consideration with the consent and
request of the parties through their learned advocates.
1.1 The appeal is accordingly taken up for final consideration.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Krishnan Ghavaria for the appellant
and learned advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw for the respondent.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1365/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2023
undefined
3. The challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal is directed against
order dated 10.07.2023 of learned single Judge, whereby learned single
Judge has issued Rule in the main petition and granted interim relief to
the petitioner-respondent herein in terms of prayer 6(C) of the petition
and has further given liberty to the respondent-appellant herein to make
appropriate representation to be decided during the pendency of the
petition.
3.1 Evidently, the order sought to be called in question is an interim
order. At the interim stage, no rights of the parties are finally settled.
3.2 What was called in question in the main petition was judgment and
award of the Labour Court, which granted in favour of the respondent-
appellant herein, the retirement benefits in terms of Resolution dated
17.10.1988. By passing the ad-interim relief, the grant of said benefits
came to be stayed.
3.3 As observed hereinabove, the entire controversy is at large on
merits before learned single Judge to be considered in the pending
petition.
4. Para 6 of the impugned order reads as under,
"Considering the submissions, particularly, the directions dated
06.01.2023 awarding retirement benefits from 04.04.2006 till the date of
retirement i.e. 31.08.2022 despite the respondent not having worked
with the petitioner, issue RULE returnable 04.10.2023. Interim relief in
terms of para 6(C) is granted till the next date of hearing. It is open for
the respondent to file appropriate representation, with necessary
document, for his entitlement for the benefit of GR dated 17.10.1988
and it is open for the petitioner to decide the said representation during
the pendency of this writ petition. "
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1365/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2023
undefined
4.1 Seeing the directions in two-folds, as above, it could be
immediately noticed that on one hand learned single Judge has granted
interim relief in terms of para 6(C) of the petition and on the other hand,
also permitted the respondent-appellant herein to make a representation to
get the benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988, which is the main
controversy in the petition.
5. The court is of the view that both the directions could hardly go
together inasmuch as the consideration of the representation by the
competent authority of Panchayat would be a fait accompli and would
serve no purpose, if interim relief operates during consideration of the
representation.
5.1 Therefore, while not entertaining the present Letters Patent Appeal
on the ground that it is against the interim order, it is clarified and
directed that while considering the representation of the appellant-the
original respondent, as directed by learned single Judge, the effect of
interim relief shall not be taken into account and the representation shall
be decided on its own merits notwithstanding and irrespective of interim
relief.
6. At this stage, learned advocate for the respondent stated that since
the representation would be with regard to grant of benefit of Resolution
dated 17.10.1988 of the state government, it is the competent authority of
the State Government which shall be deciding the representation.
6.1 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shruti Dhruve
intervened to point out that the State is not a party in the present
proceedings.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1365/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2023
undefined
6.2 Learned advocate for the appellant seeks to join the State through
its competent authority as a respondent in present matters. The
amendment is granted, to be carried out forthwith.
7. The Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of accordingly with the
above observation.
The writ of this order shall also go to the newly added party-the
State, which shall decide the representation on or before 22.12.2023
through its competent authority.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J)
C.M. JOSHI
