IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5467 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- VASANTIKA R DALIA 251, SHANTINAGAR SOCIETY Versus VADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 5467 of 2000 MR IS SUPEHIA for Petitioner No. 1 MR PRANAV G DESAI for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD Date of decision: 13/12/2001 ORAL JUDGEMENT Heard learned advocate Mr. Supehia for the petitioner and Mr. Pranav G. Desai for the respondents. In this petition, by order dated 21.9.2001, rule was issued and it was made returnable on 15.10.2001. In the mean time, the respondent Vadodara Municipality was directed to file affidavit clarifying the details, if possible, with chart, clarifying as to whether the pensionary benefit is paid to the petitioner considering the notional increment for a period between 10.2.1979 and 30.8.88 and that calculation of determination of pay is made with special reference to the scheme granting higher pay scale to the persons in employment of Baroda Municipal Corporation at the time of deciding the amount of pension and other benefits. In view of the said order passed by this Court, learned advocate Mr. Pranav G. Desai appearing for the respondent Corporation has placed on record the statement which has been prepared by the respondent Corporation wherein, according to the respondent corporation, the petitioner is entitled to total amount of retirement benefits including gratuity and pension which comes to Rs.94,679.00. According to the respondents, these are the amount which are not in dispute. In view of these facts, it is directed to the respondent corporation to pay the said amount of Rs.94,679.00 to the petitioner within six weeks from today. However, learned advocate Mr. Supehia has submitted that in case if the petitioner is entitled to have some additional amount on some other count, then, the petitioner will make representation to the respondent corporation for such amount and some directions may be issued to the respondent corporation to decide such representation and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. As against the said submission made by Mr. Supehia, learned advocate Mr. Pranav G. Desai has submitted that for such claim, the petitioner may make representation and if such representation is made, same will be considered and appropriate order in accordance with law will be passed on such representation. He has, however, clarified that according to the respondent corporation, now, nothing is required to be paid to the petitioner. In view of these facts, it is observed that in case if the petitioner feels that some amount has yet to be paid to him on some other count or ground, then, it will be open for the petitioner to make representation in that regard before the respondent corporation and if such representation is made by the petitioner, same shall be considered and decided by the respondent corporation in accordance with law within some reasonable period. With these observations and directions, this petition is disposed of. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. 13.12.2001. (H.K. Rathod,J.) Vyas