Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 1470
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Anant S. Dave and Z.K. Saiyed, JJ.
B.R. Acharya - Appellants
Vs.
State of Gujarat and Ors. - Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No. 407 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No. 12170 of 1993 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 423 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No. 7884 of 2005
Decided On : 01-08-2016
For the Appellant :M.D. Rana, Advocate
For the Respondent: Hardik Soni, AGP
Headnote:
The appellant, a Probation Officer, filed a petition challenging the government's decision to transfer him to a non-gazetted post, deny him salary and allowances from a gazetted officer, and block his promotional avenues. The appellant also sought consequential benefits such as pay and allowances from the date of superannuation, pension, and gratuity. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the appellant was not entitled to the benefits claimed. The appellant then filed a Letters Patent Appeal, which was also dismissed. The appellant then filed a Special Civil Application, which was also dismissed. The appellant then filed a second Letters Patent Appeal, which was also dismissed. The appellant then filed a Special Civil Application, which was also dismissed. The appellant then filed a second Letters Patent Appeal, which was also dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Probation Officer, filed a petition challenging the government's decision to transfer him to a non-gazetted post, deny him salary and allowances from a gazetted officer, and block his promotional avenues. The appellant also sought consequential benefits such as pay and allowances from the date of superannuation, pension, and gratuity.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the appellant was not entitled to the benefits claimed. The appellant then filed a Letters Patent Appeal, which was also dismissed. The appellant then filed a Special Civil Application, which was also dismissed. The appellant then filed a second Letters Patent Appeal, which was also dismissed. The appellant then filed a Special Civil Application, which was also dismissed. The appellant then filed a second Letters Patent Appeal, which was also dismissed.
Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefits claimed.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the appellant was not entitled to the benefits claimed because he was not a gazetted officer. The High Court also held that the appellant was not entitled to the consequential benefits claimed because he was not entitled to the salary and allowances of a gazetted officer.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the appellant was not entitled to the benefits claimed. The appellant then filed a Letters Patent Appeal, which was also dismissed. The appellant then filed a Special Civil Application, which was also dismissed. The appellant then filed a second Letters Patent Appeal, which was also dismissed. The appellant then filed a Special Civil Application, which was also dismissed. The appellant then filed a second Letters Patent Appeal, which was also dismissed.
Anant S. Dave, J.
1. The appellant has filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 407 of 2010 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 423 of 2010 challenging common order dated 15.12.2008 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7884 of 2005 with Special Civil Application No. 12170 of 1993 whereby the learned Single Judge rejected both the petitions.
1.1 The appellant has filed Special Civil Application No. 12170 of 1993 with the following main prayers:
"[a] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or directions to:
i. quash and set aside termination by transfer to lower cadre in absence of de-notification or reversion order in case of confirmed Class-II petitioner w.e.f. 1973 itself;
ii. the action of the respondent of not granting pay-scale and gazetted status w.e.f. 1973 itself [instead granting only cadre w.e.f. 1985) and;
iii. completely depriving the petitioner of all the promotional avenues since 1963 inclusive of benefit of 9/18/27 and;
[b] Your Lordships may be pleased to hold and declare that above actions of the respondents are illegal, arbitrary and void ab-initio and the said actions have blocked the petitioners way upto Class-I position prior in time compared to respondent No. 3 and
[c] Your Lordships may be pleased to grant consequential reliefs in terms of full pay in Class-II w.e.f. 1973 itself, Class-I w.e.f. 1981;
[d] Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 to grant lawful posting to the petitioner with immediate effect as an effective measure of interim relief.
[e] Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 to consider the petitioner's case first for Class-I [in-charge] position and/or confirmed position on the next available opportunity and continue to treat the petitioner as Class-I Officer for the purposes of cadre and pay during the pendency and final disposal of this petition;"
1.2 The appellant has filed Special Civil Application No. 7884 of 2005 with the following main prayers:
"[B] Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the implementation and operation of order dated 14-3-05 and order dated 30-12-97 pending admission and final hearing of this petition.
[C] Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 14-3-05 passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal consequent there of order dated 30-12-97 passed by the respondent No. 1 be quashed and set aside.
[D] Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay consequential benefits such as pay and allowances from 1-11-89 to 31-1-96 the date of the superannuation of the petitioner.
[E] Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay all pensionary benefit with effect from 1-2-1996 till date.
[F] Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay a lump-sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- one Lac as an interim relief against the pensionary benefits for livelihood of the Petitioner pending admission and final hearing of this Petition".
2. That certain details about service record of the appellant, as referred to in earlier litigation undertaken by the him and suo motu contempt proceedings initiated by this Court, and these Letters Patent Appeals are as under:
"1963
The appellant was appointed as Probation Officer and post of work at Junagadh, Jamnagar, Amreli, Surendranagar under the different acts like Children Act, Beggars Act, and Bombay Probation of Offenders Act.
1969 to 1973
The appellant worked as Probationary Officer at Amreli and Surendranagar.
04.09.1973
The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 which was enacted by Government of India as far back as 1958 was made applicable to the State of Gujarat on September, 1973 in its entirety. The Probation of Offenders Act, by Sub-section (3) of Section 1 provided that it shall come into force on such date as may be notified in the Official Gazette and different dates may be appointed for different parts of the State.
17.01.1973
The Gujarat Probation of Offenders Rules, 1973 were made by
