Special Civil Application No. 5920 of 2003. Case: Prafullaben Dayashankar Mehta Vs Jafarabad Municipal Borough and Ors.. High Court of Gujarat (India)
| Case Number | Special Civil Application No. 5920 of 2003 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: B.J. Trivedi and J.T. Trivedi, Advocates and For Respondents: Khyati P. Hathi, Advocate |
| Judges | A. S. Supehia, J. |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | April 29, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Gujarat (India) |
Judgment:
A. S. Supehia, J.
-
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.08.2002, whereby the service of the petitioner was terminated by respondent No. 1. Perusal of the said order clarifies that the petitioner has been terminated with immediate effect from 31.08.2002 after Office Hours. The said communication/order states that since there are directions from the State Government to close down the Aanganwadis (Bal Mandirs) such employees like the petitioner are to be terminated from service.
-
This Court vide order dated 10.10.2003 has recorded the statement made by learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 that the municipality has decided to reopen the Bal Mandir and the petitioner will be allowed to resume her duty w.e.f. 13.10.2003. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated on 13.10.2003 subject to result of the petition.
-
Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing Mr. Trivedi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently submitted that the petitioner was illegally terminated from her service without issuing any notice. He has further stated that the petitioner was a regular employee selected pursuant to an advertisement. He has also contended that for the interregnum period i.e. 31.08.2002 (the date of termination) till 13.10.2003, the petitioner is entitled for back wages and continuation of service. He has relied on the communication dated 31.12.2002 written by the Regional Director of Municipalities instructing the District Collector, Amreli to restore the original status as decision to close down the Bal Mandirs is kept in abeyance by the Director of Municipality, Gandhinagar. He has also further stated that it was incumbent upon the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in view of the aforesaid communication dated 31.12.2002 but the same was not done. In absence of compliance of the same, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court challenging the termination order.
-
Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent No. 3 has specifically drawn attention of this Court at Paragraph No. 5 wherein it is stated that the respondent-Municipality has given appointment to the petitioner, which is not regular and the same is contrary to the Resolution dated 28.10.1991 and 09.09.1998, whereby it was provided that before making any appointment the prior approval of the Government was required to be obtained, and in absence of any approval the appointment of the petitioner is...
To continue reading
Request your trial