PRAVINCHANDRA SHIVLAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs :

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 - Mr.P.S.Patel was working as Registrar of District and Sessions Court, Dahod, whereas petitioner No.2 - Mr.C.P.Vaghela was working as Additional Registrar while petitioner No.3 - Mr.V.K.Vankar, was serving as Deputy Registrar. It is further the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the resolution passed in the joint conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices at New Delhi on 8.9.2004 in the direction of taking steps for speedy disposal of pending cases in the Courts, a special scheme which was suggested by the then Chief Minister of the State, Shri Narendra Modi to introduce 'a working of evening Courts' which would help reduction of the cases in the Courts. In response thereto, in exercise of powers conferred by provision to Article 309 of the Constitution of India read with Articles 227 and 235, with the aid and assistance of enabling provision of the Constitution, the Governor of Gujarat State in consultation with the High Court of Gujarat, framed special Rules and ordered for establishment of evening Courts in the State of Gujarat and for that purpose, a specific Notification dated 2.11.2006 was issued by the Legal Department of the State of Gujarat and the Rules were framed and published in the official gazette of the State. It is further the case of the petitioner that expenditure related to working of evening Courts, there was approval to the expenditure of honorarium to the officers and the staff allotted to the notified evening Courts and the amount was decided by the State of Gujarat as per the recommendations of the High Court of Gujarat and the same was made available in consultation with the Finance department of the Government of Gujarat and for that purpose, special grant was also sanctioned by the High Court. 2. 1 It is further the case of the petitioners that staff pattern for the evening Court was also processed and sanctioned by the Government of Gujarat for evening Court at Dahod and it has been asserted that all the petitioners have actually worked on their respective posts in the evening Courts till their retirement. It is further the case of the petitioners that on account of attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioners have already retired; petitioner No.1 - Mr.P.S.Patel has retired on 30.11.2010, whereas the petitioner No.2 - Mr.C.P.Vaghela has retired on 30.6.2012 whereas the petitioner No.3 - Mr.V.K.Vankar has retired on 31.3.2012 respectively and all had worked as supervisor in the cadre of administrative staff of the evening Court vide special order (notification) issued by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dahod in accordance with the resolution and notification of the State of Gujarat in that behalf. Even fixation of salary was also effected. 2. 2 Additionally, the case of the petitioners that thereafter, suddenly by virtue of Order No.65 of 2013 dated 28.3.2013, the respondent No.2 i.e. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dahod directed to recover all the amounts of remuneration paid to the petitioners for the work which has been actually done by them as supervisor in the cadre of administrative staff of the evening Court with immediate effect and respective recovery amount was determined and indicated to the petitioners which has ultimately resulted in filing of a petition initially being SCA No.4067 of 2013. In the said writ petition, after hearing the parties at length, on 25.11.2013 an order was passed, whereby the petition was pressed at that stage and the same was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to make appropriate representations to the competent authority with all relevant and supportive details. It was noticed by the Court in the said writ petition that no order of actual recovery was passed at a relevant point of time and, therefore, with a view to enable the petitioners to make appropriate application / representation to the authority, the petition was allowed to be withdrawn.

(3.) It appears from the record that thereafter, the petitioners have made a representation on 23.1.2014 reflecting on page49 of the petition compilation and requested the competent authority i.e. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dahod to recall the order which was passed during the passage of time. Then, it appears that vide order dated 29.9.2014 an order came to be passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dahod by concluding that according to his opinion, it would be open for the learned District Judge to reconsider the issue and thereby, applications came to be disposed of. It is this order which is made the subject matter of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.