Gujarat Court March 2013 Judgments
PravIn Jeshinbhai Gohil Vs. State of Gujarat Thro Secretary and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-28-2013
1. The petition is preferred after the petitioner received communication dated 02.10.2011 whereby the Competent Authority has asked for certain details from the petitioner. 1.1 Instead of suppling the details as asked for by the competent authority, the petitioner has preferred present petition. 2. In the present petition, the petitioner has prayed, interalia, to quash and set aside the order/decision dated 02.10.2011 passed by the respondent No.4 and further prayed to direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment. 3. So as to consider and appreciate the petitioners case in present petition, it is necessary to take into account some of the relevant facts. 4. The petitioner has claimed that his mother was working as a nurse in Referral hospital and General Health Center at Sihor, District:Bhavnagar and she died while on service on 25.04.2011. About a month thereafter i.e. on or around 20.05.2011, the petitioner made an application for appointmen...
Tag this Judgment!Rahul Lalitbhai Trivedi Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
Oral Judgment: Ravi R. Tripathi, J. 1. Rahul Lalitbhai Trivedi the petitioner a Judicial Officer was appointed as Civil Judge (J.D.)- Class-II vide Government Notification dated 13.03.2002 in the basic pay-scale of Rs.8000-13500. The petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of two years. 1.1 The petitioner, while serving as Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Garbada and while he was serving as 3rd Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anand, was complained of certain irregularities. It so happened that on 09.02.2009, the then Principal Civil Judge, Garbada wrote a letter to the Principal District Judge, Dahod. The Principal District Judge, Dahod on receipt of the letter gave certain instructions. As per those instructions, the Principal Civil Judge, Garbada prepared a detailed report of socalled lapses which were noticed. The Registrar (Inspection), High Court of Gujarat was directed to visit and inquire into the matter vide letter dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Managing Director, Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Limited Vs. Employee ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. K.S. Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.Nirav Joshi, for the petitioner Company and Mr. Mukul Sinha, learned advocate for the respondent Association. 2. Challenge in this petition is made to the common order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara on applications Exh.65 and Exh.71, in Reference (IT) No.106 of 2011, dated 10.12.2012, whereby it is decided to consider the application Exh.65 of the respondent Association for interim relief, without dealing with the preliminary objections of the petitioner Company that the respondents are not the workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and are therefore not entitled to any relief, much less the interim relief. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that, the respondent Association, by the very name GACL Officers' Friends Association, is officers' Association and even if one may not go by only the nomenclature, if the details of each employee of the...
Tag this Judgment!Shaileshbhai N Goswami Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
Oral Judgment 1. Challenge in this petition is made to the order of the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal SPECIAL dated 02.11.2002 in Appeal No.278 of 2001, whereby, the challenge made by the present petitioner to the removal order dated 10.8.2001 was dismissed. 2. Heard Mr.N.V.Solanki learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Neeraj Soni learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent authority. 3. The date of birth of the petitioner is 22.9.1961. He had joined the service on 13.5.1985 as Craft Instructor (Wireman) at Ahwa, District Dangs, under the administrative control of the Director of Employment and Training, Gujarat State and subsequently, in the year 1988, he was posted at Gorva, Baroda. 4. The case of the authorities of the respondent department is that, on 23.12.1998 and 24.12.1998, the petitioner committed serious misconduct by misbehaving with the staff members, threatening, abusing them, etc. In this regard, charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 14.10.1999 ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Thro Addl. Director General Vs. U.D. Khatri
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Rashesh Rindani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioner State. 2. In the present petition, the petitioner has prayed that :- Your Lordships be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Learned Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal at Gandhinagar in Appeal No.20 of 2007 dated 25.10.2011, in the interest of justice. 3. Thus, the petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 25.10.2011 passed by learned Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar in Appeal No.20 of 2007. 4. So far as the said order dated 25.10.2011 is concerned, the relevant operative part of the order reads as under : - The appeal succeeds partly. The order of Inspector General of Prisons dated 02.10.2007 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority to start proceeds from the stage of issuing a fresh chargesheet and conduct of proceedings as discussed in the body of judgment. Pronounced...
Tag this Judgment!Jamnagar Rajkot GramIn Bank Officers Association and Another Vs. Saura ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
Jayant Patel, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 9.1.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.3191 of 1995, whereby the learned Single Judge, for the reasons recorded in the order, has dismissed the petition, but with the further observation that the amount already contributed shall not be recovered from the employees concerned. 2. We have heard Mr. Girish Patel, learned Sr. Counsel appearing with Mr. Mavlankar, learned Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Vakil, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Rao, learned Counsel for respondent No.2, upon advance copy. 3. The contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that in Paragraph 26(6) of the Scheme 1952, there is no express provisions made for limiting the liability of contribution of the employer concerned, in any manner whatsoever, whereas, so far as the other cases are concerned, the same have been expressly provided. It was submitted that since there is abs...
Tag this Judgment!Shankerbhai Ganeshbhai Chaudhary Vs. Principal and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-14-2013
Oral, J. 1. The petitioner has moved this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for direction to the respondents to treat the service of the petitioner to be continued srevice and to pay him back wages. 2. The following are the facts noticed from the petition. 2.1 The petitioner joined as Assistant Teacher (P.T.) in Shri N. K. T. Jalaram Vidyalaya and K.K. Pandit Higher Secondary School represented through its principal respondent No.1 on 05.01.1990. He continuously served up to 10.02.2003. On 10.02.2003, the petitioner suffered paralytic attack and was admitted in the hospital. He was issued certificate dated 15.11.2006 by President, Standing Medical Board, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad declaring him to be completely and permanently incapacitated for further service of any kind in the department to which he belongs. The said certificate is produced at Annexure B. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the said certificate, the petitioner was compelled to ret...
Tag this Judgment!Dolatbhai Prabhubhai Dumaniya Vs. Director-agriculture Marketingand Ru ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-13-2013
Common Oral Judgment: Jayant Patel, J. 1. As in all the matters common questions arise for consideration, they are being considered by this common order. 2. The short facts are as under: 2.1 The Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance, respondent No.1, in exercise of powers under Rule 4 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') has declared the election programme for various stages of the election, including that of the preparation of voters' list on 09.01.2013. He also passed an order on the same day, whereby the appointment of the Authorised Officer is made by him. The programme was prepared and was ordered to be published at various places. As per the programme prepared which has been published, the date under Rule 10(2) is fixed on 21.01.2013 and thereafter, various stages for further preparation of the preliminary voters' list, inviting of objections, finalisation of objections and finalisation of voters' list hav...
Tag this Judgment!H.M. Manani Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-08-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioner retired as Section Officer, on attaining the age of superannuation, from the service of the respondent Saurashtra University, in November, 1997. At the time of retirement of the petitioner, a dispute was raised by the audit authorities of the Government, with regard to his pay fixation of the year 1981, and consequently, his pension case was not finalised. After waiting for couple of years, the petitioner approached this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raising above grievances, which is the subject matter of this petition. 2. Heard Mr.Biren Vaishnav, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr.Rashesh Rindani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent State authorities and Mr.Avinash Thacker, learned advocate for respondent Saurashtra University. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the record, including various affidavit in replies filed on behalf of the authorities from t...
Tag this Judgment!Kirit Ramnaji Thakore Vs. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd Thro. Ashesh Thak ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
Oral Judgment: Vijay Manohar Sahai, J. 1. We have heard learned counsel Mr. Nirav R. Mishra, appearing for the appellant and learned Senior counsel Mr. Mihir Joshi assisted by Mr. Amit Panchal, appearing for the respondent. 2. The appellant had filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Junagadh, which was registered as Forum Case No. 12 of 2005. The complaint was about the excess billing for Mobile No. 9879521885 and 9825221811 for the period between 07.12.2004 to 06.01.2005. The respondents stopped outgoing facility of the mobile phones and according to the appellant this was deficiency in service. The District Forum passed an order on 25.05.2007 and came to the conclusion that the appellant was rightly billed for the calls on his mobile numbers, but recorded the findings that the outgoing facilities was disconnected by the respondent company-service provider a day prior to the last date of paying the bill and that was considered as deficiency in service...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »