MAHESHCHANDRA N PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is a third round of litigation by the petitioner. The petitioner, who was serving with respondent no.2, Vikas Education Trust, Bharuch, had number of litigations with the management such as Special Civil Application No.871/1981, which was decided by this Court (Coram:P.D.Desai, J.) on 30th March, 1981; Special Civil Application No.3269 of 1981, which was decided by this Court (Coram: B.K.Mehta, J. [as he then was]) on 22nd December, 1982; and Special Civil Application No.1743 of 1983, which was disposed of by this Court (Coram:S.K.Keshote, J.) by an order dated 10th July, 1997. This order dated 10th July, 1997 has relevance to the controversy involved in this matter because the present petition is filed for the same earlier grievances, which the Court directed respondent no.2 to decide.

(2.) This Court, after hearing the learned Advocates for both the sides, disposed of Special Civil Application No.1743 of 1983 wherein the issue of `non-payment of 27 months' salary' was also agitated, as is clear from the following observations:

(3.) Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the respondent-authorities did consider the case of both the sides and decided the matter by order dated 21st February, 1998. The matter was heard by the Additional Secretary, Education Department, who has recorded that after the order of termination of the petitioner was quashed and set aside and order dated 6th February, 1981 was passed, the management informed the petitioner (Mr.Patel) to resume duties on 1st February, 1983, but then, the petitioner did not resume duty, as directed, but, resumed only on 1st July, 1985. It is recorded in terms by the authority that between 1st February, 1983 to 30th June, 1985, the petitioner was informed by the management by letters dated 29th January, 1983, 2nd February, 1983, 21st March, 1983 and 27th June, 1985. But, despite these communications, the petitioner did not resume duty. It is required to be noted that the Commissioner, Higher Education also informed the petitioner by his letter dated 9th March, 1983, mentioning that, `if the petitioner does not take charge, it will be his responsibility'. Despite that, the petitioner (Mr.Patel) did not resume duty. Taking into consideration the factum of non-resumption of duties by the petitioner, the Commissioner-Higher Education, wrote to the respondent No.2-President, Vikas Education Trust, Bharuch on 14th October, 1985 that `as the petitioner (Mr.Patel) has not resumed duties from 1st February, 1983 till 30th June, 1985, he is not entitled to receive salaries and, therefore, the amount paid to Mr.Patel towards salary is to be recovered and the same be deposited with the Government Treasury'. The authority has also recorded that, `from the representations made by the petitioner from time to time, it is borne out that the petitioner did not make any satisfactory attempt to resume duty from 1st February, 1983 till 30th June, 1985 and did not discharge duties as Principal'. The management had also represented that the institution had never obstructed the petitioner (Mr.Patel) from discharging his duties. On the contrary, the institution wrote numerous letters asking the petitioner to resume and discharge his duties.