LAWS(GJH)-1996-11-18

VASANTIBEN HASMUKHARAI DAVE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On November 26, 1996
VASANTIBEN HASMUKHARAI DAVE Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letter Pattent Appeal is directed against an order dated 19th Feburary, 1996, passed by the learned single Judge summarily dismissing Special Civil Application No. 429 of 1996.

(2.) The appellant is the original petitioner. The case of the appellant is that her husband was serving as Head clerk with Sheth D.V. Government Higher Secondary School, outside Savasar Naka, Anjar, District Kutchh, respondent No. 3. He disappeared from 1st July, 1991. It appears that respondent No.3 informed Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gandhidham about the disappearance of the husband of the appellant on 4th July, 1992. The appellant filed First Information Report about disappearance of her husband on March 18, 1995. The appellant made an application to the Commissioner of Higher Education, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, respondent no.2 herein, On 13th March, 1995 praying therein that since her husband had disappeared from 1991, as per Government Resolution dated 25th September, 1987, she may be granted pensionary and other benefits to which she would be entitled to. No reply was given to the appellant. The said prayer was reiterated by an application dated 5th Jujy, 1995, but nothing was done in the matter. The appellant, therefore, approached this Court by filing the aforesaid Special Civil Application.

(3.) The learned single Judge dismissed the petition mainly on the ground that there was no demand by the petitioner and refusal by the respondents and, hence, a writ of mandamus cannot be sought by her. Though Rule was issued on 17th January 1996, no affidavit-in-reply was filed by the State. At the time of dismissal of the petition, the learned single Judge observed that it would be open to the petitioner (present appellant) to file a detailed representation in form of notice of demand of justice to the respondents and the respondent authorities were directed to dispose of the said representation by passing a speaking order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of notice for demand of justice. It appears that the representation was made by the present appellant on 21st June, 1996.