SURESHKUMAR T SHARMA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INITIALLY, this petition was filed for challenging the orders passed by the learned District Judge, Junagadh, and for the prayer to treat the termination of the petitioner's services from the post of work-charge Clerk as illegal, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and to treat the petitioner as continuing in services as a work-charge Clerk as if the services of the petitioner were never terminated. Subsequently, by amendment, two more prayers came to be added, as 6(E) and 6(F), praying to grant retirement benefits and the benefit of revised pay scale as per the 6th Pay Commission. The petition was admitted by order dated 4.10.1994 and the respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to continue in service. Thus, by virtue of the above-said the interim order, the petitioner continued in service as work-charge employee. Learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn my attention to order dated 17.8.2009 (Annexure-'I'), whereunder the petitioner was retired on reaching the age of 58 years, with effect from 17.8.2009.

(2.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Raval further states that since the petitioner has retired from the service, there is no question of now examining and considering the prayers originally made in the petition. But, he submitted that the other work-charge employees, who were appointed after the petitioner, have been treated to have been continued in service right from the inception of their appointment and whatever benefits are given to them, the petitioner would be equally entitled to claim similar kind of benefits. Today, though learned advocate has placed on record, Additional Affidavit annexing the list containing some of the work-charge employees, but he is unable to point out as to which benefit is conferred to those employees, except that their date of entry in service was subsequent to the date of entry of the petitioner. However, learned advocate submits that that it will be in the interest of justice, if the petitioner is permitted to go to the authority to point out some more details in respect of the above-said work-charge employees for the grant of similar kind of benefits to the petitioner, then the grievance ventilated through the amendment in the petition may not be required to be considered. LEARNED advocate, therefore, does not invite any order on merits in respect of the amended clause in the petition and requests that the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the representation which may be made by the petitioner with all details in respect of the amended prayers in the petition. The said Additional Affidavit submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner is taken on record.

(3.) IN view of the above-said observations and directions, the petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly.