JILUBHAI D PARMAR Vs. SARPANCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate order quashing and setting aside the order passed by Respondent No.2 dated 22.02.1996 by which the Resolution No. 20 dated 24.07.1995 passed by the Ranpur Gram Panchayat, by which the petitioner was made permanent has been permanently suspended / stayed and further order has been passed to recover the salary paid to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 750 940 from 01.08.1995 to 22.02.1996. It is further prayed for an appropriate direction or order preventing the respondent to implement the order dated 15.02.1996 Annexure G to the petition.

(2.) SHRI Uday Shashtri, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner will be restricting his claim and /or prayer in the present Special Civil Application only qua the direction issued by the Taluka Development Officer, Dhanduka by order dated 22.02.1996 by which it was ordered to recover the salary already paid to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 750 940 paid from 01.08.1995 till the impugned order came to be passed. Accordingly, so far as other prayers are concerned, the present Special Civil Application is dismissed as having not pressed. Therefore, the only question requires to be considered by this Court is with regard to the order of recovery of the salary salary already paid to the petitioner from 01.08.1995 in the pay scale of Rs. 750 940.

(3.) IT is required to be noted that the Resolution came to be passed in the year 1995 by which the petitioner was made permanent and the petitioner was in fact paid salary in the pay scale of Rs. 750 940 and the said Resolution came to be suspended by impugned order dated 22.02.1996. Thus the petitioner will not be entitled to any salary in the pay scale of Rs. 750 940 by order dated 22.02.1996. It is required to be noted that in fact by subsequent order dated 28.02.1996, passed by the Ranpur Gram Panchayat, the petitioner was again continued as daily wager and it is reported that the petitioner is still working as daily wager.