Gujarat High Court
Harendrasinh Jashvantsinh Chauhan vs States Of Gujarat on 23 April, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/23036/2022 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 23036 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 23036 of 2022
=====================================================
HARENDRASINH JASHVANTSINH CHAUHAN
Versus
STATES OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA DAVDA ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 23/04/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. By way of Civil Application, the applicant -
original petitioner has prayed to direct the
respondents to consider and decide representations
dated 3.11.2020, 9.11.2021, 7.2.2022 and 23.3.2022
preferred by the applicant expeditiously.
2. By way of the main writ petition, the petitioner
has prayed for grant of higher pay scale on
completion of prescribed period of services as per
G.R. dated 16.8.1994 and other consequential reliefs.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/23036/2022 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025
undefined
3. Today, learned advocate Mr. Shivam Majmudar
appearing for the petitioner has submitted that if
the petitioners' representation dated 3.11.2020 is
directed to be decided, that would serve the purpose
of the petitioner as rest of the representations were
made to the authorities which were not empowered to
decide the issue. He further submitted that if the
above direction is issued, the petitioner will not
press the prayers made in the writ petition with a
liberty to file fresh petition in case the outcome of
the representation is against the petitioner. He
further submitted that if the above direction is
issued, the main matter as well as civil application
may be disposed of. He further submitted that though
the issue is covered by judgment dated 29.6.2018
passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.380 of 2016, the
respondents are not considering the representation in
light of above decision and therefore, the
respondents may be directed to decide the
representation of the petitioner dated 3.11.2020 at
the earliest and to pass a speaking order as the
issue is covered.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/23036/2022 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025
undefined
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya
Davda appearing for the respondents though submitted
that the petitioners case is different than the case
of the petitioners of Letters Patent Appeal No.380 of
2016. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Davda
further submitted that as far as the representation
dated 3.11.2020 is concerned, if the respondents are
directed to decide the same in accordance with law,
the Court may issue suitable direction.
5. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and perused the record. As learned
advocate Mr. Majmudar appearing for the petitioner at
the time of dictation submitted that the issue is
squarely covered in view of observations made by the
Division Bench of this Court in paragraph No.21.1 of
Letters Patent Appeal No.380 of 2016 dated 29.6.2018,
this Court may direct the respondents to consider the
petitioner's representation in light of observations
made in paragraph No.21.1 of the above decision and
in case if, the respondents do not grant the benefits
as prayed for to the petitioner, the respondents may
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/23036/2022 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025
undefined
be directed to pass a reasoned order as to how the
observations made in the above decision rendered in
Letters Patent Appeal No.380 of 2016 is not
applicable in the facts of the present petitioner.
6. In view of above, the respondents are directed to
decide the petitioners representation dated 3.11.2020
at the earliest but in any case before 31.7.2025 and
in case if, the respondents takes a view that the
petitioner is not entitled to the benefits prayed for
by him in light of decision referred herein above,
the respondents are directed to pass a reasoned order
and to assign reasons as to how the decision dated
29.6.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.380 of
2016 is not applicable in case of present petitioner.
Needless to say that in case if, the decision goes
against the petitioner, it will be open for the
petitioner to challenge the same.
7. With the aforesaid observations, without entering
into the merits of the matter, the petition as well
as civil application are disposed of. In case the
representation of the petitioner is considered
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/23036/2022 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2025
undefined
positively, in that case, from the date of order, the
respondents are directed to extend the benefits to
the petitioner within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of the order. Direct service is
permitted.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
Pallavi
