LAWS(GJH)-2013-1-46

AMRATLAL S TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On January 09, 2013
Amratlal S Trivedi Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has joined the services of Gujarat State as Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate First Class on 19/04/1970 and retired from the service on superannuation on 31/12/1992. Thereafter, he was re-employed w.e.f. 22/11/1993 as a Joint Charity Commissioner. Later on, he was again re-employed w.e.f.01/04/1994 as a Member Secretary, State Legal Aid and Advice Board. The petitioner retired from his second re-employment on 31/03/1997.

(2.) THE petition involves a very short question and the question is whether the conditions prevailed at the time of second re-employment on 01/04/1994 will continue to operate at the time of his retirement on 31/03/1997 or they can be retrospectively modified by G.R. dated 11th September, 1996.

(3.) MR . Parikh, learned advocate invited attention of the Court to the representation made by the petitioner on 27/04/1998 to the Secretary, Legal Department, wherein, the petitioner has quoted the individual cases, to whom, similar benefit was granted by the Government as is sought for by the petitioner. With regard to the same, Para-6 of the representation is reproduced for ready perusal. Para-6 In the case of Shri T.D. Soyanter, who retired from re-employment as Chairman of Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal, benefit of 90 days E.L. in excess of 240 days E.L., encashed by him on superannuation was given. The office of Accountant General (Audit Branch) Gujarat State raised objection that the payment of 90 days E.L. in excess of 240 days to Mr. Soyanter was illegal and directed the Government to recover payment of 90 days salary given to Mr. Soyanter. In the said case, the Government in the Gujarat Administrative Department with concurrence of F.D. took the decision that F.D. resolution dated 10/01/1978 and 23/07/1979 are separate and independent and gave opinion the payment of 90 days E.L. in excess of 240 days given to Mr. Soyanter was proper and legal and audit objection raised by Audit Branch A.G. Office was bad and further directed that the office of the Accountant General, Gujarat State be informed accordingly. A letter dated 07/08/1993 expressing said opinion of Government was written to Gujarat Service Tribunal. A type copy of the said letter is enclosed herewith. The true copy of the said letter was asked for by Mr. F.G. Mehta retired City Civil Judge from Secretary, Civil Service Tribunal and from G.A.D. but his request is turn-down. I have therefore not attempted the get the copy of the same.