SCA/3156/1986 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3156 of 1986 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1717 of 1986 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ ================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================= SMT. CHANDRA N. SHARMA - Petitioner(s) Versus THE CHIEF OFFICER, & 1 - Respondent(s) ================================================= Appearance : NOTICE UNSERVED for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR RN SHAH for Respondent(s) : 1, MR LB DABHI, AGP for Respondent(s) : 2, ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ SCA/3156/1986 2/3 JUDGMENT Date : 15/11/2005 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner has filed this petition seeking direction to the respondent No. 1 to regularize the services of the petitioner in the post of Nurse in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 and the petitioner has prayed further direction to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner from the date of regularization of her service i.e. Right from the date of her initial appointment on daily wage basis. 2.The petition was admitted on 29.08.1986. The petition was filed by learned advocate Shri V.H. Bhairvia who was later on elevated to the bench of this Court. The office has, thereafter issued fresh notice on the petitioner and the Bailiff's remark was that the Senior clerk who was present has taken papers of this petition and he has filed report SCA/3156/1986 3/3 JUDGMENT to the said effect. The office endorsement however shows that the petitioner has not been served as the petitioner has shifted to another place i.e. Bombay since 1990. It appears from this endorsement that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing this petition. The petition is, therefore, disposed of without going into the merits of the matter reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court in case of difficulty or if the need so arises. 3.Subject to the above observation, the petition is disposed of. Rule discharged without any order as to costs. 4.In view of disposal of main petition, Civil Application No. 1717 of 1986 dos not survive and it is accordingly disposed of. [K.A. PUJ, J.] Savariya