GANGJIBHGAI LALJIBAHI SAGATHIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Deepak Sanchela for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Surbhi Bhati for the respondent-State.

(2.) By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge an order dated 15/4/2014, whereby the respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of consequential benefits.

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr. Sanchela would submit that the said order had been passed in context of a challenge by the present petitioner to an order of termination passed by the respondents dated 10/11/1994, which had been challenged by the petitioner by filing a Regular Civil Suit No.895 of 1996 before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhavnagar. Learned Advocate Mr. Sanchela would submit that vide a judgment and order dated 30/6/2006, the learned Trial Court had been pleased to allow the Civil Suit preferred by the present petitioner and whereas the petitioner had been directed to be reinstated will all consequential benefits. Learned Advocate Mr. Sanchela would submit that the said judgment and order had been challenged by the State before the learned District Judge, Bhavnangar and whereas vide an order dated 13/5/2011, while confirming the judgment and decree, the learned District Judge had modified the same inasmuch as the petitioner was given liberty to approach the respondent authorities for grant of consequential relief and whereas it was directed that the State authorities would grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing any order with regard to the consequential relief. Learned Advocate Mr. Sanchela would submit that while the order of the learned District Court had been challenged before this Court where such challenge failed and ultimately even challenge to the same before the Hon'ble Apex Court had also failed. Learned Advocate would submit that parallelly the petitioner had initiated proceedings for execution of the order and whereas it appears that during such stage, the respondents had issued the order dated 15.04.2014 and whereas relying upon the said order, the Executing Court had come to a conclusion that the decree was duly discharged and whereas the execution applications were rejected. Learned Advocate would submit that the said order had been challenged before this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No. 8652 of 2017 and whereas vide an order dated 31.08.2021, the same had been permitted to be withdrawn. Learned Advocate would submit that while the decree had been satisfied by passing of order dated 15.04.2014 inasmuch as the case of the petitioner for grant of consequential benefits had been considered and rejected by the respondent authorities and whereas learned Advocate would submit that till now, the said order has not been challenged independently on its merits. Learned Advocate would submit that since the petitioner was agitating grievance with regard to decree not being satisfied till this Court, therefore as such there is no delay in challenging the order dated 15.04.2014.