Back
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Rajesh Ganpatrao Shinde – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Nimit Y. Shukla, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3- State. Though served, none appears for and on behalf of the respondent no.4.
2. By way of the present petition, petitioner herein is aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 dated 07.01.2004, duly produced at Annexure-H, Pg-37, whereby, by the impugned action, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 withheld the benefit of last pay protection and reduced the basic pay of the petitioner from Rs.8500/- to Rs.6500/- and issued recovery for the services rendered by the petitioner herein in a non-granted secondary school for a period from 05.12.1996 to 31.12.1999.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition reads thus:
3.1. The petitioner herein was appointed after following due procedure of selection and approval of the respondent – District Education Officer (DEO) as provided under Section 35 of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, w.e.f. 01.01.2000 in the respondent no.4 school.
3.2. Prior to the joining of the respondent no.4 school, the petitioner was initia
The court established that actions affecting employment rights must comply with natural justice, requiring a hearing before adverse decisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prescribed scale of pay in the recruitment notification for direct recruitment to government schools prevails over claims for pay protecti....
The delay in approaching the court does not affect the claim for pay protection and higher pension, and the recurring cause of action in matters of pay scale and consequential pension justifies the r....
Point of Law - In view of the above provisions of the Act, 1972 it emerges that due to fault of the management of the School the petitioner cannot be penalized by not granting the protection under Se....
The court ruled against arbitrary recovery of excess salary, emphasizing protections for employees and the necessity for compliance with procedural justice.
The cancellation of a senior scale and selection grade after significant delay and without prior communication of adverse remarks violates principles of natural justice.
The service conditions for Teachers in Aided Schools and Government Schools are distinct and separate, and the appointment based on the recruitment process is independent, precluding the entitlement ....
A writ petition under Article 226 to contest a pay fixation must be timely; delays can lead to denial of the claim.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
