Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 16 (GUJ)

N. H. Suthar v. State of Gujarat

2009-01-16

K.S.JHAVERI

body2009
JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. The petitioner by way of this petition has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 25th February, 1987 passed by the respondent, whereby the petitioner has been repatriated from the Office of the Development Commissioner to the Office of District Panchayat. 2. The facts in brief are as under :- 2.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk in the Office of the District Panchayat, Kutch, vide order dated 23rd August, 1972. Pursuant to the demand from the Office of respondent no. 2, the petitioner joined the Office of respondent no. 2 on 17th December, 1979. 2.2. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1980, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Chitnis. Thereafter, vide letter dated 6th November, 1984, the respondent no. 2 invited options from the deputationists who wanted to be permanently absorbed in the Office of respondent no. 2. In response to the letter dated 6th November, 1984, from the respondent, the petitioner and other similarly situated persons showed their willingness to be permanently absorbed in the Office of respondent no. 2. However, the Office of respondent no. 2 rejected the said request vide letter dated 12th April, 1985. 2.3. Being aggrieved by the said action of the respondent, the petitioner made a representation to the Development Commissioner on 18th April, 1985 and prayed for reconsideration for permanent absorption in the Office of respondent no. 2. However, vide order dated 25th February, 1987 the Office of respondent no. 2 ordered the petitioner to be repatriated to the Post of Junior Clerk in the District Panchayat. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Court while issuing notice had granted ad-interim relief in terms of para 26(B), whereby the respondent was restrained from implementing the impugned order dated 25.02.1987 passed by the Development Commissioner. Thus, the petitioner has been protected all throughout and he has been working on the said post of Deputy Chitnis since then. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been continued on the said post all throughout, it will not be appropriate to disturb the said position at this stage, i.e. after a period of almost 21 years. 4. In view of the above, the petition is not entertained. It stands disposed of accordingly. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been continued on the said post all throughout, it will not be appropriate to disturb the said position at this stage, i.e. after a period of almost 21 years. 4. In view of the above, the petition is not entertained. It stands disposed of accordingly. However, it is made clear that whatever the petitioner is entitled under the Rules, the respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. Petition disposed off.