Gujarat High Court Case Information System function loadSearchHighlight() {
var chkParamC = "txtSearch" if (chkParamC == "txtSearch") {
SearchHighlight(); document.searchhi.h.value = searchhi_string; if( location.hash.length > 1 ) location.hash = location.hash; }
}
SCA/6831/2008 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6831 of 2008
==========================================
NAND
T. HINGORANI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
========================================== Appearance
:
MR CL SONI
for Petitioner(s) : 1, MS ASMITA PATEL, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) : 4,
==========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 09/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
This
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents to pay gratuity amount to the petitioner as per the Resolution dated 23rd March, 2006 passed by the Education Department of Government of Gujarat.
2. A
reliance was also placed by learned advocate for the petitioner on the order dated 24th March, 2006 passed in Special Civil Application No.22646 of 2005, where certain directions were given by the learned Single Judge of this court to confer the benefits of Government Resolution dated 23rd March, 2006 to similarly situated persons.
3. Upon
issuance of notice, affidavit-in-reply is filed by the Accounts Officer, Commissioner of Higher Education, Gandhinagar by which it is clarified that the petitioner retired on 14th June, 1997 and as per the provisions of Government Resolution which was applicable at that point of time dated 19th January, 1993 which was in existence up to 31st March, 1995, the maximum limit of DCRG was up to Rs.1,00,000/- or 16½% of pay, whichever is less, and thereafter it was raised to Rs.2,50,000/- and accordingly, the case of the petitioner was considered. So far as applicability of Government Resolution dated 10th January, 1996 is concerned, the petitioner was paid Rs.1,49,870/- and calculation in this regard is also placed on record.
4. So
far as enhanced amount of DCRG is concerned, as per Government Resolution dated 23rd March, 2006, which was to take effect from 24th September, 1997, the same is not applicable to the petitioner since the petitioner retired on 14th June, 1997. Both the Resolutions dated 23rd March, 2006 and 21st August, 1998 are placed on record. A bare perusal of the Resolution dated 21st August, 1998 at R-IV to the affidavit-in-reply shows that it is after the date of superannuation of the petitioner and in view of the above, denial to the benefits accruing out of the above Resolution by the respondent authorities towards enhanced DCRG cannot be said to be in any manner unreasonable or arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No other issue is involved. The petition is, therefore, rejected. Notice discharged.
(
Anant S. Dave, J. )
hki
Top