SCA/8866/2007 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8866 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= SHANTABEN GUNVANTLAL PARIKH WIDOW OF GUNVANTLAL PARIKH - Petitioner(s) Versus THE CHIEF OFFICER, & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR ASIT B JOSHI for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR DIPAK R DAVE for Respondent(s) : 1, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date : 09/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT SCA/8866/2007 2/4 JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr. Dave for respondent No.1 and Mr. Pandya, learned AGP waives notice of Rule. 2. The petitioner has preferred the petition for challenging the order dated 13.12.2006 passed by the Municipality, whereby all four claims of the petitioner has been rejected. 3. Heard Mr. Joshi for the petitioner, Mr. Dave for the respondent Municipality and Mr. Pandya, learned AGP for respondent No.2. 4. Upon hearing the learned advocate for both the sides, it appears that as such, the impugned decision is based on the consideration that the claim was not allowed in recovery application No. 131/96, which was subsequently set aside by this Court vide order dated 30.01.2006 in Special Civil Application No. 10912 of 2001. 5. It is true that the Labour Court in the recovery application No. 131/96 had passed the order on 04.09.2001 directing the municipality to pay an amount of Rs.41,406.89 Ps. However, such order of the Labour Court was set aside on the ground that in view of the resolution of the Municipality, the benefits were conferred and the petitioner, if desirous may challenge the said resolution of the municipality dated 08.07.1994. It is an admitted position that the petitioner did not challenge the said resolution at the relevant point of time. Therefore, the SCA/8866/2007 3/4 JUDGMENT contention of the petitioner that the resolution of the administrator was in contravention to the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, now cannot be entertained in view of the earlier decision of this Court dated 30.01.2006. 6. However, on the aspects of salary for three months and for the non-payment of the installment, pursuant to the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, it appears that there was no earlier order of this Court in the above referred decision. Further, if the employee has worked on the post in question, it would be required for the Municipality to pay the salary. Similarly, for the implementation of the Award of the Industrial Tribunal for payment by installment, it is an admitted position that 9 installment were paid and the remaining installments were not paid. Therefore, if the remaining installments have been paid by the Municipality to all other employees who are covered by the Award even after the resolution of the administrator, it would be required for the Municipality to give the same treatment to the petitioner as it was given to the other similarly situated employees. 7. Instead of considering the above referred aspects, it appears that the municipality negatived the claim of the petitioner account of the order passed by the Labour Court in the SCA/8866/2007 4/4 JUDGMENT recovery application and subsequent order of this Court, whereby the order below the recovery application was set aside. Therefore, the impugned order can be said as without proper application of mind. 8. Hence, the impugned order to the aforesaid extent of the aforesaid claim is quashed and set aside. 9. It is further directed that the respondent No.1 Municipality shall consider the claim of the petitioner afresh for non-payment of the salary for last three months and also for the payment of the remaining amount of installment as per the Award of the Industrial Tribunal. 10.The aforesaid claim shall be considered by the Municipality keeping in view the observations made hereinabove and the appropriate decision shall be taken including that of disbursement of the requisite amount within a period of three months from the receipt of the order of this Court. 11.Petition is allowed accordingly. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. (JAYANT PATEL, J.) *bjoy