Gujarat High Court
Krushnabhai Ramabhai Desai vs Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd on 15 July, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7754/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7754 of 2025
==========================================================
KRUSHNABHAI RAMABHAI DESAI
Versus
MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD
==========================================================
Appearance:
PRITHU PARIMAL(9025) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR VIRAL J DAVE(5751) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 15/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Prithu Parimal appearing on
behalf of the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Viral Dave
appearing on behalf of respondent.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks for grant of
first higher grade pay w.e.f. 31.05.2004.
3. Considering the submissions made by learned advocate
Mr.Parimal and learned advocate Mr.Dave, it would appear
that while the petitioner was facing a criminal prosecution
and whereas, while the petitioner had been acquitted therein,
the request for grant of first higher grade pay was not
considered in view of the fact that the State had preferred an
acquittal appeal against the order passed by the learned Trial
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7754/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
Court i.e. Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Sabarkantha at
Mosada (Sabalpur) in Special (A.C.B.) Case No.09/1998.
3.1. It would appear that though the acquittal appeal also
had been rejected vide judgment dated 11.02.2015 in
Criminal Appeal No.1731/2004 by this Court, yet, the
grievance being raised is that the respondents have not yet
considered the case of the present petitioner. It also appears
that repeated representations have been made by the
petitioner and whereas, while the petitioner has retired from
service upon attaining the age of superannuation on
29.02.2020, yet, as of now, the request of the petitioner has
not been acceded to.
4. Having regard to the above position, since there has not
been any application of mind by the respondents as regards
the request of the petitioner, at the first instance, directing
the respondents to decide the request of the petitioner and
thereafter permitting the petitioner to avail appropriate
remedy, would meet with the ends of justice. Hence, the
following directions:-
(i) The petitioner to prefer a fresh representation to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7754/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
respondent within a period of fifteen days from today for the
grievance raised in the present petition.
(ii) The respondent herein shall decide the representation
preferred by the present petitioner within a period of sixty
days from the receipt thereof. In case the request of the
petitioner is acceded to, appropriate benefits shall be paid to
the petitioner within a period of thirty days thereafter. It is
further clarified that in case the request of the petitioner is
not acceded to, then the respondent shall pass a reasoned
order and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner.
(iii) It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits
of the matter and the respondents shall take an appropriate
decision strictly in accordance with law.
5. With the above observations and directions, the present
petition stands disposed of.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
Bhoomi
