SHARDABEN MURLIBHAI GURJAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . The formal service of notice of Rule is waived by Shri Niraj Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on behalf of the respondents. The Rule is fixed forthwith on consent. By way of present petition preferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the alleged illegal act of the respondents in the following factual background:

(2.) 1. The petitioner is a widow appointed on August 8, 2001 by the respondent No. 3 on compassionate ground on the death of her husband, who was serving as a Machine Attendant. The petitioner joined the service as a Hamal/Porter (Class -IV) with the office of the respondent No. 3. It is the say of the petitioner that a Senior Clerk appointed with the respondent No. 3 at M.C.A. Government Technical College, Maninagar, Ahmedabad, used to harass the female staff members working with the respondent No. 3. It is the say of the petitioner that at present she is working with the respondent No. 3 at Ghee Kanta and the said Senior Clerk, who is otherwise working at Maninagar College, frequently visits the office of the respondent No. 3 at Ghee Kanta and harasses the female staff members. She herself is one of the victims. She had also made various representations to different authorities and dignitaries, but of no avail. It is her say that on account of her voicing the grievance against this person, she has been transferred to M.C.A. Technical College at Maninagar. The persons who support her are also being victimised. It is alleged that the concerned person is a headstrong person and his behavior is much resented by many and yet he is being protected for the reasons best known to those in the administration. The petitioner has mainly prayed for the following relief's in the present petition:

(3.) A fortiori, Shri Dipak Dave, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, urged that in clear violation of the guidelines issued at the relevant point of time by the Apex Court in the decision in the case of Vishaka, [ : AIR 1997 SC 3011], the Committee was constituted by the respondent No. 3 subsequent to the statutory Act in the year 2013. He has urged that it is not necessary that other employees may support the cause of the petitioner. The Committee, which is formed, is in no manner empowered to decide the grievances of the petitioner. The petitioner, however, has no difficulty if, as stated by the learned Government Pleader, the Committee is formed in strict compliance of the provisions of the said Act and if such Committee considers the grievances of the petitioner with all its seriousness. He has urged that the person against whom the complaint is made, has acted very high -handedly all throughout and nobody dares to point the finger at him.