Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 290 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Dhirajlal Dhanjibhai Rathod

2016-02-08

JAYANT PATEL, VIPUL M.PANCHOLI

body2016
ORDER : Jayant Patel, J. Learned counsel appearing for both the sides concede to the position that in another cognate appeal No. 7 of 2016 and allied matters, this Court, vide order dated 27.01.2016, has passed the following order: “1. We have heard Mr. Devnani, learned AGP for the appellant and Mr. Mishra for the respondent-original petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for both the sides concede that against the very common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 12537 of 2013, Letters Patent Appeal was preferred and this Court vide order dated 13.1.2016 had passed the following order: “It prima facie appears that original petitioners were not appointed as per the scheme floated by Government Resolution dated 16.2.2006 and they were appointed much prior thereto on temporary post. Therefore, as it is, they would not be entitled to the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 16.2.2006 but it appears that at one point of time the benefit is also conferred but only to the extent of putting in the minimum pay + Rs. 2,000/- as out of pocket which also in our prima facie view is impermissible. At the most, the original petitioner would be entitled to minimum pay of the driver from 2010 onwards since the policy was adopted to pay the minimum pay to the respective post holder who were appointed on a fix salary. At this stage, Mr. Mishra learned counsel appearing for the respondent-original petitioner seeks time to produce additional material of the Government Resolution and the orders of this Court. Hence, notice returnable on 4.2.2016 By ad-interim order, operation and implementation of the order of the learned Single Judge shall remain stayed. However, it is observed that the payment which is already being made to the original petitioner of Rs. 2,500/- + Rs. 2,000/- shall not be discontinued.” 2. In view of the above, we find that the following order deserves to be passed: 3. Notice returnable on 4.2.2016 Mr. Mishra waives service of notice for respondent-original petitioner. To be heard with Letters Patent Appeal No. 6 of 2016 and allied matters. By adinterim order, the operation and implementation of the order of the learned Single Judge shall remain stayed. However, it is observed that the payment which is already being made to the original petitioner of Rs. 2,500/- + Rs. 2,000/- shall not be discontinued.” 2. To be heard with Letters Patent Appeal No. 6 of 2016 and allied matters. By adinterim order, the operation and implementation of the order of the learned Single Judge shall remain stayed. However, it is observed that the payment which is already being made to the original petitioner of Rs. 2,500/- + Rs. 2,000/- shall not be discontinued.” 2. In view of the above, Notice returnable on 18th February 2016. Mr. Mishra waives service of notice for respondent-original petitioner. To be heard with Letters Patent Appeal No. 6 of 2016 and allied matters. By ad-interim order, the operation and implementation of the order of the learned Single Judge shall remain stayed. However, it is observed that the payment which is already being made to the original petitioner of Rs. 2,500/- + Rs. 2,000/- shall not be discontinued.