Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1301 (GUJ)

Jagdishkumar Devram Varadiya v. Anilkumar

2017-07-21

B.N.KARIA, M.R.SHAH

body2017
JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “the learned tribunal”) in Contempt Petition No. 38/2014 in Original Application No. 209/1997 and to direct the DoT to grant the benefit of 1989 Scheme to the petitioners with all consequential benefits. 2. [2.0] Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, it appears that the main grievance of the petitioners is that despit the earlier order passed by the learned tribunal dated 27/11/2012 in Original Application No. 209/1997 by which the learned tribunal declared that the action of the respondents putting off the duty of the petitioners with effect from 1997 was arbitrary and illegal and the learned tribunal further directed that their cases be granted for temporary status in terms of the 1989 Scheme and the petitioners should be extended the benefits flowing from the said Scheme, the said direction has not been carried out by DoT and instead BSNL appointed them, who had no locus and authority to pass any authority on the aforesaid. 3. [3.0] Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the earlier order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 13/08/2014 in Special Civil Application No. 8499/2013, which was arising out of the order passed by the learned tribunal dated 27/11/2008 in Original Application No. 209/1997 confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as per the earlier directions issued by the learned tribunal in Original Application No. 209/1997 as such the DoT was required to carryout the directions issued by the learned tribunal in its order dated 27/11/2012 in Original Application No. 209/1997, no such decision has been taken by DoT. 4. [4.0] In view of the above undisputed facts, Shri Devang Vyas, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of DoT/Union of India has stated at the bar that the directions issued by the learned tribunal in its order dated 27/11/2012 in Original Application No. 209/1997 shall be carried out and complied with by DoT within a period of eight weeks from today. Meaning thereby, as earlier directed by the learned tribunal, DoT to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of temporary status in terms of the Scheme of the Department dated 07/11/1989 and to consider whether the petitioners should be extended the benefits flowing from the Scheme or not in accordance with law and independently. Concerned Department, more particularly DoT is directed to act accordingly and communicate the outcome of such decision to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of such decision, which as such is required to be given within a period of eight weeks from today. 5. With this, the present petition stands disposed of.