MUNICIPAL AND PANCHAYAT EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. KALOL MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ms.D.T.Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner. Mr.M.I.Patel, learned advocate for the respondent. The present petition is filed for the various reliefs. However, in an order dated 4.2.1998 it is stated that the learned advocate for the petitioner has confined the grievance with respect only to the pension for the retired employees. It is also mentioned in the said order that with respect to other grievance made in the petition individual and separate petitions will be filed by the aggrieved persons. On 25.4.2000 the order was passed directing the Chief Officer & President of Kalol Municipality to remain personally present on 4.5.2000.

(2.) . Yesterday i.e. 4.5.2000 only Chief Officer of the Municipality remained present and President was not present before the court and therefore the matter was kept today and it was orally directed that the President shall comply the order dtd.25.4.2000. Today the President of the Municipality is present. It is stated by the President that due to some personal unavoidable circumstances he could not remain present, he had sent massage through the Chief Officer that he will not be able to remain personally present on 4.5.2000. Mr.M.I.Patel, the learned advocate for Municipality states that the president of the Nagar Palika is given to understand that in future such lapse must not occur on the part of the president.

(3.) About the grievance pertaining to the pension is concerned it is stated that the pension for the month of February which ought to have been paid on the 1st March could be paid only in second week of April. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the pension for the month of March and April is yet not paid though it ought to have been paid on 1st April and 1st May respectively.