Back
2022 Supreme(Guj) 1189
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.
Ashokbhai Ramjibhai Jambucha - Petitioner
Versus
District Development Officer & Others - Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 14323 of 2018
Decided On : 15-11-2022
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.S. Asthavadi.
For the Respondent: Ms. Foram U. Trivedi AGP, Mr. H.S. Munshaw.
The court emphasized the importance of timely challenges to orders and the need for sufficient justification for any delay in filing petitions.
Headnote:
Delay in Challenging Order - Continuous Wrong - 07.06.1995 - The court dismissed the petition challenging the order dated 07.06.1995, as it was filed after a delay of 24 years. The petitioner's explanation of continuous wrong was not accepted by the court, and the delay was not sufficiently justified. The petition was dismissed on the ground of delay.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former employee, challenged an order dated 07.06.1995, which placed him in a lower pay-scale. The petitioner retired on 30.11.1994, and the order remained unchallenged for 24 years. The petitioner's explanation for the delay was based on the impression that the result of an earlier appeal would restore the withdrawn higher pay scale.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay of 24 years was not sufficiently explained by the petitioner. The court did not accept the petitioner's justification for the delay, as the earlier challenge was focused on the recovery of an amount and not the original order of 1995. The court dismissed the petition on the ground of delay.
Issues: Delay in challenging the order dated 07.06.1995, continuous wrong, and insufficient explanation for the delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay of 24 years in challenging the order dated 07.06.1995 was not sufficiently justified by the petitioner. The court did not accept the petitioner's argument of continuous wrong, as the earlier challenge did not include the original order. Therefore, the petition was dismissed on the ground of delay.
Final Decision: The petition challenging the order dated 07.06.1995 was dismissed by the court due to the delay of 24 years and the insufficient explanation provided by the petitioner.
ORDER :
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. A.S. Asthavadi for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Foram Trivedi for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 07.06.1995 and has further sought direction to the respondents to restore first higher grade pay to the petitioner in the pay-scale of Rs.1600-2660 from 01.06.1987. In consequential prayer the petitioner has prayed for revised pension from the date of his retirement and for arrears of the pension from 31.11.1994 onwards.
3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Ashthawadi for the petitioner submitted that petition was actually appointed in the Industrial Training Institute at Botad under Bhavnagar District Panchayat as Assistant Instructor on 12.02.1964 in the pay-scale of Rs.100-5-150 and subsequently he was appointed as Instructor in the year 1965 in the pay-scale of Rs.150-10-200. Thereafter, he was transferred to Surat along with the establishment and petitioner was relocated at Surat. The said Training Institute i.e. ITI was closed down in the year 1988 and the petitioner was declared as ‘excess’ / surplus ( Faajal ) but his job was protected and thereafter he was appointed as Junior Clerk in the pay-scale of Instructor vide order dated 25.10.1989 in the pay-scale of Rs.900-1500/-.
3.2 When the petitioner was declared excess, he was drawing salary of Rs.1950/- in pay-scale of Rs.1100-2000/-. Hence, being aggrieved by his accommodation in the lower pay-scale of Rs.900-1500/- as against original pay-scale of Rs.1100-2000/-, the petitioner approached Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal by way of Appeal No.535 of 1989. The said Appeal was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 17.05.1990 and the respondents were that petitioner should be appointed as Senior Clerk and his pay and allowances etc. shall be governed by Circular dated 09.05.1989 and 18.04.1978 of the State Government.
3.3 In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Respondent No.2 placed the petitioner as Senior Clerk in Public Health Center, Sarbhon in the pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040 with effect from 01.04.1988.
3.4 Thereafter, the State Government issued Government Resolution dated 05.07.1991 whereby scheme related to higher pay-scale was introduced and accordingly the proposal was sent to the concerned department of Respondent No.1 in the year 1994 and the petitioner was paid first higher pay-scale in the grade of Rs.1600-2600/- on completion of 9 years with effect from 01.06.1987.
3.5 The aforesaid action was also approved by the Local Fund Office and also recorded in the service book of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.1994.
3.6 Somehow vide communication dated 28.04.1995 issued by the Respondent No.3 i.e. Account Officer, Local Fund Office, Surat, the Respondent No.3 passed an order dated 07.06.1995 reverting the petitioner in the pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040 and fixed revised salary of the petitioner from 01.04.1988 in the pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040/- from salary of Rs.1600-2660/- which the petitioner was receiving at the time of his retirement.
3.7 As a consequential action, vide order dated 04.09.1995, a recover of Rs.12817/- was ordered.
3.8 At the relevant point of time, the petitioner did not challenge the order dated 07.06.1995. Instead the petitioner after delay of almost 14 years challenged the action of the respondent of recovering Rs.12817/- before the Civil Services Tribunal by filing Appeal No.232 of 2009 as at the relevant point of time by way of last communication dated 30.09.2009, the respondents have stated that amount already recovered from the salary of the petitioner cannot be refunded back to the petitioner.
3.9 The aforesaid appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 02.01.2017 by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar and the respondents were directed to return
