Mahesh R Patel. Vs. State of Gujarat Through Secretary and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[p. sathasivam ; h.l. gokhale, j.j.] - the indian penal code, 1860 section 302 - punishment for murder -- sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav was instituted. sunil yadav was instituted. on 29.04.1997, about 5:30 a.m., at nawada sadar hospital, si anil kumar gupta recorded the statement of sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav and on the basis of his statement fir no 12/97 was registered with govindpur p.s under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 447 ipc against upendra yadav, rambalak yadav, basudev yadav, anil yadav, manager yadav, ganuari yadav, damodar yadav, suresh yadav, umesh yadav, muni yadav and naresh yadav. the charge-sheet bearing no. 12/97 was submitted in fir no. 11/97 p.s. govindpur, on 30.06.1997 against brahamdeo yadav, sunil yadav, darogi mahto, maho yadav, paro mahto, kuldeep yadav, sudhir yadav, bale yadav, shivan yadav and suraj yadav and sunil yadav who was later instituted. the charge sheet bearing no. 36/97 was also submitted in fir no. 12/97 p.s. govindpur, on 17.12.1997 against upendra yadav, rambalak yadav, basudev yadav, anil yadav, manager yadav, ganuari yadav, damodar yadav, umesh yadav, muni yadav and naresh yadav except suresh yadav s/o kesho yadav as he had died. informant-naresh yadav (pw-9) informant-sunil yadav (a9 in fir 11/97) brahmdeo yadav, darogi mahto, sunil s/o bale yadav, maho yadav, kuldeep yadav, bale yadav, suraj yadav, shiv nandan yadav, sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav, sudhir yadav and paro mahto, total 11 persons forming a group came there and surrounded them. brahmdeo yadav, sunil yadav, darogi mahto and maho yadav were armed with rifle. bale yadav, kuldeep yadav, shiv nandan yadav and suraj yadav were armed with gandassa. kuldeep yadav gave gandassa blow to munshi yadav.1. this petition, under article 226 of the constitution of india has been filed, with the following prayers :"a) admit this petition;b) issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to direct the respondent nos.1 and 2 to take appropriate decision for granting benefit of first and second higher pay scale to the petitioner and the respondents may be directed to pass appropriate order for granting benefit of higher pay scale and difference of salary may be ordered to be paid to the petitioner with 12% interest and other consequential benefits may be ordered to be paid to the petitioner;alternatively issue appropriate writ, order or direction upon the respondent no.2 authority to take appropriate decision upon the proposals received by the respondent no.2 as per the communication dated 7/11/2008 and 16/10/2009 and the respondent no.2 be directed to take appropriate decision in respect of the mater relating to grant of higher pay scale and after hearing the petitioner, respondent be directed to take appropriate decision;c) grant interim relief and by way of interim order be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to take appropriate decision for granting benefit of higher pay scale to the petitioner as per various government resolutions/ circulars pending admission and final disposal of this petition;d) pass such orders as thought fit in the interest of justice."2. the grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of his having passed the gpsc examination within three chances, and in spite of having successfully completed the probation period, respondents nos.1 and 2 have not considered the same and have not granted the benefits of the first and second higher pay scale to the petitioner, despite proposals being sent to respondent no.2 in this regard.3. at the very outset, mr.n.k.majmudar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the interest of justice would be met, if respondent no.2 is directed to take an appropriate decision upon the proposals, as per communications dated 7.11.2008 and 16.10.2009 in respect of granting higher pay scale to the petitioner, after giving him an opportunity for hearing.4. upon the above statement being made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the following order is passed :5. respondent no.2 is directed to take an appropriate decision in respect of the matter granting higher pay scale to the petitioner, after granting him an opportunity for hearing. the said decision be taken in accordance with law, and within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.6. it is clarified that while passing this order, the court has not entered into the merits of the case. the petition is disposed of, in the above terms.

Judgment:
1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, with the following prayers :

"A) admit this petition;

B) issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to direct the respondent nos.1 and 2 to take appropriate decision for granting benefit of first and second higher pay scale to the petitioner and the respondents may be directed to pass appropriate order for granting benefit of higher pay scale and difference of salary may be ordered to be paid to the petitioner with 12% interest and other consequential benefits may be ordered to be paid to the petitioner;

ALTERNATIVELY issue appropriate writ, order or direction upon the respondent no.2 authority to take appropriate decision upon the proposals received by the respondent no.2 as per the communication dated 7/11/2008 and 16/10/2009 and the respondent no.2 be directed to take appropriate decision in respect of the mater relating to grant of higher pay scale and after hearing the petitioner, respondent be directed to take appropriate decision;

C) grant interim relief and by way of interim order be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to take appropriate decision for granting benefit of higher pay scale to the petitioner as per various Government Resolutions/ Circulars pending admission and final disposal of this petition;

D) pass such orders as thought fit in the interest of justice."

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of his having passed the GPSC examination within three chances, and in spite of having successfully completed the probation period, respondents Nos.1 and 2 have not considered the same and have not granted the benefits of the first and second higher pay scale to the petitioner, despite proposals being sent to respondent No.2 in this regard.

3. At the very outset, Mr.N.K.Majmudar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the interest of justice would be met, if respondent No.2 is directed to take an appropriate decision upon the proposals, as per communications dated 7.11.2008 and 16.10.2009 in respect of granting higher pay scale to the petitioner, after giving him an opportunity for hearing.

4. Upon the above statement being made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the following order is passed :

5. Respondent No.2 is directed to take an appropriate decision in respect of the matter granting higher pay scale to the petitioner, after granting him an opportunity for hearing. The said decision be taken in accordance with law, and within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. It is clarified that while passing this order, the Court has not entered into the merits of the case. The petition is disposed of, in the above terms.