SCA/834/1993 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 834 of 1993 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= KABHAI D CHAMAR - Petitioner Versus VADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Respondent ========================================================= Appearance : MR RD RAVAL for Petitioner: 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2,1.2.3 MR PRASHANT G DESAI for Respondent: 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 21/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. SCA/834/1993 2/4 JUDGMENT 2. Shri Raval, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that this petition is now confined only in respect of petitioner No. 3 Kishan Solanki as in case of petitioner No. 2 Jaswant Darbar, he had already given up his cause by giving in writing to the Commissioner that he is ready and willing to give up his cause, whereas, in case of petitioner No. 1 Shri Kabhai Chamar, despite many request for sending instructions, has not responded and petitioner No.3 Solanki, who is present in the Court has informed Shri Raval that he is also not interested in the matter. Accordingly, Shri Raval, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, does not press this petition qua petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and this petition is only confine to petitioner No. 3 only. 3. Shri Raval, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the issue involved in the petition is now settled as in respect of petitioner No. 3, an order is issued on 4th March, 2006 by the Corporation, whereunder, he has been appointed as Trainee welder on the basis of his fulfilling eligible criteria. However, the grievance would remain with regard to considering the past entitlement as petitioner No. 3 is working since 1984 and therefore, there ought to have been some consideration for this past period. Shri Raval SCA/834/1993 3/4 JUDGMENT under instructions of petitioner No. 3 submitted that the petitioner No. 3 is ready and willing to give up his actual monetary benefits for the past in case if his case is considered for giving him notional benefits from the date when he became entitle for the post of Trainee welder. 4. Shri Desai, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Corporation submitted that as there is an order of 4th March, 2006, let the petitioner No. 3's case be considered by the Competent Authority of the Corporation for appropriate notional benefits on the basis of the Award at Annexure – A to this petition and liberty be reserved to the petitioner No. 3 in case any difficulty. 5. In view of this, this petition is disposed of with following directions : The petitioner No. 3 is at liberty to make representation with regard to his appointment as Trainee Welder in light of the Award pressed into service in this petition and indicating his grievances to give up his actual monetary benefits for the past service, in case his case is considered for according him notional benefits from the date when he became entitled for post of Trainee Welder upto the date i.e of 4th SCA/834/1993 4/4 JUDGMENT March, 2006 when he was actually appointed, within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The appropriate competent Authority in the Corporation shall decide the representation, if any, made by the petitioner No. 3 in accordance with law within 30 days from the date of receipt of the representation. It is clarified that in case the petitioner No. 3 is aggrieved by the order that may be passed on the representation, he would be at liberty to move appropriate forum including this Court for appropriate relief and the concession of giving up past benefits would also not be held against him in that eventuality. 6. In view of the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) pallav