PATEL NAYNABEN REVABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Ms.Manishah Shah, learned AGP, appears and waives service of notice of rule for respondents No.1 and 2., Ms.Pahwa, learned Counsel, appears and waives service of notice of rule for respondent No.3 and Mr.J.J.Yajnik, learned Counsel appears and waives service of notice of rule for respondent No.4. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) The present petition is preferred by the petitioners for declaring the action of respondents No.1, 2 and 3 in not granting the benefit of lien and as a consequence thereof the absorption, as bad in law and null and void. It is the case of the petitioners that they were working as primary teachers in Ashram Shala and as per the Government Resolution dated 23-8-1973, the petitioners would be entitled to have the right of lien. Earlier in this matter, by way of interim order, this Court had given direction to the Secretary, Education Department to consider the matter. It appears that on 21-6-2000, the Secretary, Education Department had considered the matter and in view of the Resolution dated 8-12-1999 of the State Government the request for lien is rejected.

(3.) Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as for the respondents, in my view the present case is fully covered by the decision of this Court dated 1-2-2003 in SCA No.5378/2001 and allied matters. In the aforesaid decision dated 1-2-2003, in view of the judgement dated 12-7-2001 passed by this Court (Coram: P.B.Majmudar, J.) in SCA No.2506/2001 interpreting the resolution dated 8-12-1999, the matter was directed to be reconsidered. In view of the same reasoning, the case of the petitioner is also required to be considered by the Secretary, Education Department on the same line as has been directed in SCA No.5378/2001. In the present case also the petitioners were appointed prior to the resolution dated 8-12-1999 and, therefore, the matter is required to be considered accordingly. As observed in the earlier decision dated 1-2-2003 in SCA 5378/2001, the view taken by this Court (Coram: P.B.Majmudar, J.) interpreting the resolution dated 8-12-1999 is that those who were in the employment at the time when the resolution came to be passed should be extended the benefits of lien and they should have been eligible for such purpose.