Court : Gujarat
C.L. Soni, J. 1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of the original petitioner who preferred the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the order dated 1.4.2013 whereby his services were terminated. Learned Single Judge has observed that since during probation period, the respondent found that the performance of the appellant was not satisfactory, it passed impugned order of not extending the service beyond probation period. It is further observed by the learned Judge that the services of the petitioner have not been terminated on account of any misconduct or any guilt proved against him but since it was found that there was no improvement in the performance of the petitioner, the University took decision to relieve him from service by impugned order which was not stigmatic. 2. We have heard learned advocates for the parties. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Bhushan Oza appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
C.L. Soni, J. 1. The State and its authorities have filed this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to the limited extent of challenging the judgment dated 17.12.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge insofar as the learned Single Judge has while directing the appellants to consider and grant first higher grade pay scale to the respondent, ordered to pay interest at the rate of 6% on the benefits of higher grade scale. 2. We have heard learned advocates for the parties. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Prakash Jani appearing with learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Rutvij Oza submitted that the benefit of higher grade scale is not available to an employee as a matter of right. The higher grade scale is an incentive provided by the Government under the special policy on completion of particular number of years of service and on satisfying other criteria under the special policy for such benefits. Mr. Jani submitted that if there are genuine reasons for delay in r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
C.L. Soni, J. 1. The appellant is the original petitioner who preferred the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 12.1.2012 rejecting the application of the appellant for compassionate appointment. The appellant also sought direction in his petition against the respondents to consider his case for compassionate appointment. 2. The facts not in dispute are that the father of the appellant who was serving as Deputy Mamlatdar, expired on 7.11.2001. Since the appellant was minor, the mother of the appellant made application on 2.2.2002. The Collector recommended for giving compassionate appointment to her. However, the respondent No.2 informed the Collector that the compassionate appointment could not be given to her as she was not holding required qualification. The appellant became major and acquired qualification of graduation. He, therefore, applied on 28.2.2008 for compassionate appointment. However, the respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
C.L. Soni, J. 1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of the original respondents against whom the respondent herein- original petitioner preferred the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash and set aside the communication dated 12.7.2007 at Annexure-F whereby the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected by respondent No.1 on the ground that the petitioner was not holding requisite qualification of SSC for Class-IV post as per the notification dated 16.3.2005 notifying the Recruitment Rules for such Class-IV post. 2. Learned Single Judge, however, quashed and set aside the said order of the respondent No.1 and held that the respondent herein shall be entitled for appointment on Class-IV post as per the policy prevailing at the time of making application for compassionate appointment and directed the appellants to pass appropriate order appointing the respondent on compassionate ground with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Rule. Mr.D.M. Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, wavies service of notice of Rule for the respondents, in each petition. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petitions are being heard and decided, finally. 2. The challenge in this group of petitions is to the impugned orders of different dates passed by the Deputy Collector, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Palanpur, terminating the services of the petitioners herein as Administrators-cum-Cooks and directing them to deposit different amounts. The petitioners have also challenged the orders of different dates passed by the Collector, Banaskantha, whereby the appeals filed by them, against the orders of termination, have been rejected. 3. As similar issues of law and fact arise in these petitions, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. 4. The brief factual background in each petition is as follow: (1) The petitioner of S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Heard Ld. Advocate Mr. UD Shukla with Mr. Tirthraj Pandya for the appellant, Ld. Advocate Mr. Pranav G Desai for the respondent no. 1 and Ld. Advocate Mr. Sahil Shah for the respondent no. 3. 2. The appellant is original plaintiff, whereas the respondents are original defendants and they are referred in the same capacity herein also. 3. The appellant has preferred Civil Suit No. 359 of 2014 before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad for declaration that invocation of the bank guarantees, details of which are disclosed in the plaint, is illegal, null and void and fraudulent and unforceable and not binding to the plaintiff and that the defendant no. 3 is not entitled to invoke bank guarantees and thereby defendant nos. 1 and 2 are not entitled or liable to make payment of such bank guarantees with ancillary relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from invocation of the bank guarantees under reference on the ground of fraud and equitable relief. 4. By impugned order dated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. By this revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("the Code" for short), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.5.2009 passed by the Mamlatdar, Mandvi under the Mamlatdar Courts Act ("the Act" for short) as well as the confirming order dated 21.7.2010 passed by the Deputy Collector, Bhuj in revision application no.2 of 2009, preferred by the petitioner. 2. The Mamlatdar, by his order dated 12.5.2009, allowed the suit preferred by the respondent and ordered the petitioner to restore the use of way through his land and further restrained the petitioner from preventing the respondent in using the way for the purpose of taking agricultural equipments/instruments by the respondent. 3. The above order passed by the Mamlatdar was challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy Collector by filing the revision application under section 23 of the Act. 4. Before the Deputy Collector, no objection as regards limitation for filing the suit under the A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ["the Act" for short] is at the instance of the claimants in a proceeding under section 166 of the Act and is directed against an award dated 19th April 2005, passed by the Jt. District Judge and M.A.C. Tribunal [Aux.], Amreli in M.A.C. Petition No. 78 of 2000, thereby partly allowing the claim-application and awarding a sum of Rs. 2,48,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of filing of the claim-application till realization. Being dissatisfied, the claimants have come up with the present appeal. It may not be out of place to mention here that neither the insurance company nor the owner of the erring vehicle has preferred either any separate appeal or any cross-objection in this appeal. Therefore, the involvement of the vehicles in the accident and the coverage of insurance of the vehicles are not in dispute. The only question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the Tribuna...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
C.L. Soni, J. 1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of the original petitioner who filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of the respondents in refusing to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner as illegal and unconstitutional and to direct the respondents to consider his case for compassionate appointment on the basis of the rules prevailing at the time of his application dated 13.2.2004. 2. Learned Single Judge rejected the petition mainly on the ground of delay by observing that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat and Others versus Budhabhai A. Chavda reported in 2011 (2) GLR 1236 could not be applied in the prevailing circumstances. 3. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties. Learned Advocate Mr. Baxi appearing for the appellant submitted that after the father of the appellant expired on 4.9.2003, the appellant moved application for c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Akil Kureshi, J. 1. In this petition the petitioners have challenged a Notification dated 4th February, 2012 at Annexure "J" to the petition, as being unconstitutional. The petitioners have further prayed for a direction to grant appointments to the petitioners on priority basis to the post of Livestock Inspectors. 2. The brief facts are as under:- 2.1 The State Government, in order to meet with the requirement of trained Livestock Inspectors at distant and far away places, which task would not be possible to be performed only with the aid of the veterinary doctors, has created the cadre of Livestock Inspectors in the Department of Animal Husbandry. These Livestock Inspectors, as is apparent from the Government of Gujarat's Notification dated 27th February, 2001, were allowed to attend to the livestocks under the supervision and direction of a registered veterinary practitioner, as long as they are in the Government service. 2.2 In exercise of the powers under Article 309 of the Consti...
Tag this Judgment!