LAWS(GJH)-1998-5-1

RATIBHAI M PATEL Vs. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MEHSANA

Decided On May 04, 1998
RATIBHAI M.PATEL Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,MEHSANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, in all three, who were the employees of the respondent-Chanasma Nagar Panchayat, filed this Special Civil Application before this Court and prayer has been made for quashing and setting aside of the order passed by the Development Commissioner dated 19/11/1986, Annexure 'D' confirming thereunder the order passed by the District Development Officer, Mehsana dated 23/07/1986. Further challenge has been made to the order Annexure 'E' dated 18/12/1986 of the respondent No. 1.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 1 was appointed in the office of the respondent No. 1 as Senior Clerk even prior to 1954. The petitioner No. 2 was employed as Junior Clerk from 1/08/1964 whereas the petitioner No. 3 was employed as Tax Clerk since inception of Chanasma Nagar Panchayat, i.e., since 1959. The petitioner No. I was thereafter promoted to the post of Secretary of Chanasma Nagar Panchayat with effect from 1/04/1986. From the said date the petitioner No. 2 was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk, and the petitioner No. 3 as Shops-cum-Octroi Inspector with effect from 1/06/1986. These promotions have been given to the petitioners in pursuance of the Resolutions of the General Meeting of the Chanasma Nagar Panchayat held on 10/03/1986 bearing Nos. 177 to 179. In pursuance to those resolutions, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 resumed their office on promotional posts with effect from 1/04/1986 and the petitioner No. 3 resumed on the promotional post w.e.f. 1/06/1986. The respondent No. 1 under its order dated 23/07/1986 passed in exercise of powers under Sec. 294(4) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 ordered that the Resolution Nos. 177 to 179 passed by the Chanasma Nagar Panchayat should not be implemented and suspended the effect thereof though what the petitioners contended that he knew that the resolutions were in fact already implemented. The respondent No. 3 preferred revision application against the aforesaid order of the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 vide its order dated 19/11/1986 confirmed the order of the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 then passed the order on 1 8/12/1986, under which he has nominated the persons to the posts of Secretary. Senior Clerk and Shops-cum-Octroi Inspector of Chanasma Nagar Panchayat. copy of which has been submitted on the record of this Special Civil Application as Annexure 'E'. Hence, this Special Civil Application.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that both the authorities, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. have committed serious illegality in passing of the impugned orders without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It has next been contended that when the resolutions passed by the respondent No. 3 have been given effect to or implemented and the petitioners joined on the promotional posts there was no question of exercise of powers under Sec. 294(4) by the respondent No. 1 and confirming the said order by the respondent No. 2. Lastly, it has been contended that this Court has protected the petitioners and now when two petitioners have already retired from the services and one petitioner is working on the post of Chief Officer, this Court should quash those orders.