Gujarat Court January 2012 Judgments
Shree Yogkshem Foundation for Human Dignity Vs. State of Gujarat and O ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA)1. By this Public Interest Litigation, the writ-petitioner has prayed for issue of appropriate writ, order and direction and thereby to quash and set aside the fixed-pay-condition imposed in the policy framed by the Finance Department by Resolutions KhRCh/2002/57/Z.1 dated February 16, 2006 and April 29, 2010 and to direct the respondent to pay minimum of the pay-scale available in the cadre of the employees who are appointed on regular permanent posts with deemed date effect in the interest of justice; or in the alternative, to direct the respondent to pay minimum wage to the fixed pay employees with corresponding effect of 6th Pay Commission with deemed date effect, i.e. January, 2006 with interest at 12%, in the interest of justice. The writ-petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the decision taken by the State Government dated February 24, 2011 and to direct the State Government to pay minimum wag...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendrasinh Dilavarsinh Raj and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
1. Rule. Mr.P.S.Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1, Mr. Rakesh Gupta, learned advocate for M/s. Trivedi and Gupta, waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos.3 to 5 and Ms.Archana C.Rawal, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.6 State of Gujarat. Though respondent No.2 – Competent Authority, who is the author of the impugned communication, has filed an affidavit, he has neither appeared as PartyinPerson nor through an advocate. As the issue involved in the petition is a purely legal one, it is not considered necessary to issue notice of Rule to respondent No.2. 2. The challenge in this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is to the communication dated 26.08.2011, addressed by the Competent Authority (respondent No.2), to the learned advocates of the petitioners, rejecting the claim application filed by the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!M.D. Mavani Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
Cav Judgment: 1. The petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, initially with following prayers in para 13:- “13(A) Quashing and setting aside the order dated 29.8.1998. (B) Directing the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner to undergo the pre-service training and to appear at the post training examination; (C) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, respondent No.1 may be restrained from enforcing or implementing the order dtd. 29.8.1998; (D) to grant such other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit and proper;” Under order dated 29.8.1998, originally challenged in the petition, the petitioner was reposted as work-charge Clerk by cancelling his temporary appointment to the post of Junior Clerk. The petition was then amended and one more prayer was added, which reads as under:- “(BB) Directing the respondents to send the petitioner for interview to the concerned committee as contemplated by Notification dated 1...
Tag this Judgment!Sunderlal Bhanabhai Bhagat and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
V.M. Sahai, J. Oral Order: 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. S.P. Majmudar for the appellants, learned AGP Mr. N.J. Shah for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Dilip Kanojiya, learned Advocate for respondents No. 5 and 6. 2. The present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 11.10.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 13406 of 2010, by which the learned Single Judge has confirmed the order dated 20.7.2007 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department, in Revision Application No. 4 of 2006, affirming the order dated 18.9.2003 passed by the Deputy Collector in Tenancy Case No. 23 of 2002. 3. Mr. Majmudar, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently urged that by sale deed dated 26.12.1990 the appellants had sold fragmentation of land in favour of the respondents No. 3 and 4, which was not permissible in law and, therefore, the said sale deed was void. It is further submitted that the sale deed ex...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›