DILAVARSANGHJI ANUBHA JADEJA Vs. COLLECTOR OF KUTCH BHUJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the respondents Ms. Sejal Mandalia prays for time for adjournment of the case on two counts. Firstly she states that the papers of this case have not been sent to her from the office, and secondly the reply to the writ petition is to be filed on behalf of the respondents for which reasonable time may be granted. I do not find any substance in both the prayers made by the learned counsel for the respondents. This writ petition is of the year 1983. It has come up for final hearing after twelve years. The writ petition was admitted after notice to the respondents. Notice was issued on 27th May, 1983, and interim relief in terms of para 12 (c) has also been granted. In these circumstances I fail to see any justification in the prayer of the learned counsel for the respondents made after twelve years for time to file reply to the writ petition. The respondents had enough time to file reply if they so wished, but they have not availed of that opportunity. So far as the other request is concerned, it is also not acceptable. It is the internal matter of the office of the Government Pleader. It shows how the files are being maintained in the office of the Government Pleader. This matter was notified for hearing on 5th January, 1996, and came up for hearing today after six or seven days. I fail to see why this time was not sufficient to trace out the file in the office. It apears that no body cares in the office of the Government Pleader to trace out files of the cases which are being notified for hearing. That is how the hearing of the cases are being delayed.

(2.) I have perused the writ petition. I am satisfied that this writ petition deserves acceptance. The petitioner was appointed as Talati on 23rd December, 1944 in the Princely State of Kutch. After merger of the princely state in the year 1948, the territory of Kutch was administered by the Central Government. With effect from 26th January, 1950 it became Part- C State. On reorganisation of the States in 1956 the State of Kutch was merged in the Greater Bombay State. On bifurcation with effect from 1-5-1960 Kutch became part of the newly formed State of Gujarat.

(3.) In the year 1957 the petitioner was promoted as Circle Inspector and thereafter, in the year 1975 he was promoted with effect from 1-3-1975 to the post of Circle Officer which is a post in the cadre of Deputy Mamlatdar. The petitioner, in para 3 of the writ petition, stated that in the erstwhile State of Kutch there was no proper maintenance of service records of the employees, which fact stands uncontroverted by the respondents. Not only this, whatever details recorded in the service record of the employees were also not verified. The petitioner stated that he was not aware of the entries made in the service record. After formation of the State of Gujarat, it is the case of the petitioner, that the Government of Gujarat directed all the officers to verify and update the service record of the employees and complete the same after due verification, so that in the record there may not be errors or omissions and commissions. The petitioner was called upon by the Mamlatdar under whom he was posted at the relevant time to produce school leaving certificate or any other document in support of his date of birth. The petitioner had his education at Alfred High School, Bhuj. In the general register maintained at the school his name has been registered at serial No. 2036 and his date of birth is entered as 7-11-1926. The petitioner has taken certificate from the Head Master of Alfred High School Bhuj, and the same was produced before the Mamlatdar to show and establish that his date of birth is 7-11-1926.