SUDHABEN WILLIAMBHAI BARAIYA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
A.Y. KOGJE, J
SUDHABEN WILLIAMBHAI BARAIYA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR APURVA A DAVE
For the Respondents: MS. SURBHI BHATI, AGP, MR HS MUNSHAW

Table of Content
1. joint hearing of similar petitions. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioners claim rights to pension scheme due to lack of option exercise. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 10)
3. legal precedents support timely exercise of options. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. court reinforces the need for adherence to procedural timelines. (Para 12 , 18 , 19)

JUDGEMENT

1.This two petitions are arising out of the identical facts and are raising the same issues and hence, at the request of both the sides, the same are taken up for joint hearing and final disposal. With consent, the facts are recorded from Special Civil Application No.11129 of 2017, where the respondent on behalf the Corporation has already filed the reply. At request, learned Advocate appearing for the Corporation and with consent of the learned Advocate for the petitioner on principle, the reply filed in this petition be treated as reply to both the petitions.

2.This petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India is filed with following prayers:

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus holding that the Petitioners are eligible and entitled to be ex

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

HIGH COURT OF GUJARATA.Y. KOGJE, JSUDHABEN WILLIAMBHAI BARAIYA – AppellantVersusSTATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
A.Y. KOGJE, J
SUDHABEN WILLIAMBHAI BARAIYA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent