BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY KARMACHARI PARIVAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Bhavnagar University Karmachari Parivar-through its President and Joint Secretary, has filed this Special Civil Application under Art, 226 of the Constitution of India and prayer has been made for quashing and setting aside the Government Resolution dated 12th May, 1989 which excludes 'old campus' employees from the benefit of campus allowance and which confines the payment of campus allowance for a period of 5 years commencing on 1.4.1989. Further prayer has been made for direction to the respondents to pay campus allowance to the non-teaching employees of the University with effect from 1.10.1978.

(2.) The counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court as despite submitting repeated representation the respondent State has not decided anything. It has next been contended that this Special Civil Application is squarely covered by the decision of this Court given in Special Civil Application No. 5262/86 decided on 24th November, 1994. In that case also identical issue was raised by the Bhavnagar University Class IV Union. Respondent No. 1 has not filed any reply to the Special Civil Application. So far as respondent No. 2 is concerned, it has in fact not disputed the claim of the petitioner. It is the case of respondent No. 2 in the reply that the Executive Council of the University vide its resolution dated 30th June, 1983 had recommended to the Government that conveyance allowance be paid to the employees of the University. But the State Government did not accede to the request of the Executive Council of the University. The counsel for the petitioner contended that all the members of the petitioner Association have got campus allowance in pursuance of the Government Resolution for five years. But they are entitled to get this allowance till they are in service. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 is unable to State anything contrary to what is contended by the counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) However, I do not consider it proper to decide this matter on merits, and the reason is that the representation filed by the petitioner before respondent No. 1 has to be decided by it. When the employees or their association made a representation in the matter of some service disputes, then it is the duty of the respondent State to decide the same within reasonable time. This tendency of the State Government, its officers and functionaries to sit tight over the representation of the employees made in connection with their service conditions or service disputes has given rise to indiscriminate number of petitions before this Court. The State Government, in case take the matter in true perspective concerning the grievance of its employees or in respect of which adverse orders have been made, then there is possibility that the number of litigation before this Court in the form of Special Civil Application may be reduced to considerable extent. This is one of the cases of such category. In case the State Government would have decided the matter, then possibly this litigation would not have been before this Court. This Court is already facing mounting arrears of cases and in majority of cases the Government is party. If the representation is decided by reasoned order and if the employee is not satisfied with the same, and he decided to come before this Court, then it will be advantageous for this Court to go on the ground on which the grievance of the employee has not been accepted by the State Government. In such matter exercise lias to be limited only to the question where the ground given for declining the relief as prayed for by the employee in the representation was legal or not. In such cases even if the respondent State Government does not file reply affidavit, then the Court can decide the matter on merits. But in majority of cases where the representation has been made, either the same has not been disposed of or even if decided then it is by non-speaking order. Because of this tendency of the State Government, its functionaries and officers to sit tight over the representations of its employees, it gives rise to numerous Special Civil Applications before this Court, This is also a matter where the claim made by the petitioner in this petition is stated to be squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the aforesaid Special Civil Application. This is precisely the question which has to be decided by the Government, and if it is satisfied that the matter is covered by the decision of this Court, the prayer made and the relief claimed by the petitioner has to be extended to the members of the petitioner Association.