K M KAKASANIA Vs. SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT GANDHINAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is clearly a litigation which otherwise would have been avoidable in case the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 would have acted reasonably, fairly and in consonance with the principles of fair play. It is not gainsay that because of inaction or omission or causal approach on the part of the functionaries and officers of the State of Gujarat, a Welfare State, numerous litigations are coming up before this Court though otherwise those would have been avoidable litigations. This Court is already facing the problem to reduce the mounting arrears of pending cases. The State of Gujarat, its functionaries and officers instead of giving their fullest co-operation to the Court to overcome this problem are in fact adding further litigations, which is clearly reflecting from this case. The worse part is that the respondents aforesaid have not even cared to file reply to the Special Civil Application. Not only this, nobody is present on their behalf to make oral submissions also. No officer or officer in-charge of the case from any of the departments is also present. So the total contribution of the State of Gujarat, its functionaries and officers, is not to file reply as well as to contest this petition orally. Despite State of Gujarat setting a handsome amount in the budget for defending the litigations which are being filed against it in the High Court or subordinate Courts, this is the total defence which is forthcoming from them. It is high time for the State of Gujarat to consider whether this handsome amount of public money has to be gone wasted. In case if the Courts are to decide the matters without any assistance forthcoming from the State of Gujarat, its functionaries and officers then what for this institution "Government Pleader's Office" is continued and what for this heavy burden is put on the public of this country ? This amount could have been utilised better for other good cause as well as to provide the necessary facilities to the people of the State. This is not the first case where I am constrained to make all these observations but earlier also from time to time in many of the cases, this Court has drawn the attention of the State Government in this respect but ultimately what has been done in the matter is only in the file of the respondent-State. Non-co-operative attitude of the State of Gujarat, its functionaries and officers also delay the disposal of the matters. This Court has to wait for reasonable time for filing reply by the State Government. This petition has been admitted by this Court on 23/10/1996 and more than two years and seven months have already been passed but the State of Gujarat, its officers and functionaries have not taken any care to contest this petition. Non-filing of the reply and absence of the officers of the State Government and the Government Advocate goes to show that the State of Gujarat has no case whatsoever to defend. Even if it is taken to be correct then the State of Gujarat, a Welfare State, and its officers should have been very frank to the Court as well as fair to the employees may be of the Panchayat to bring this fact to the notice of this Court. If it would have been done at the earlier opportunity then this petition would have been disposed of long back. This remained pending for this long time and as such the petitioners could not get the timely relief.

(2.) The respondent No. 4 has filed reply to the Special Civil Application but if we go by the contents thereof, I find that it is not substantially contesting the petition. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 during the course of arguments very fairly submitted that it is the State Government who is not giving it that positive orders otherwise the Panchayat has accepted the claim of the petitioner. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) It is not in dispute that prior to 1-1-1986 both in the Irrigation Department of the State of Gujarat and in the Panchayat there was a post under the designation of Supervisor and that post in the State Government and in the Panchayat was carrying the same pay-scale. It is also not in dispute that qualifications for appointment on this post both in the State Government and in the Panchayat are identical. Above that, there is no dispute that from the side of any of the respondents that the holders of this post in the State Government and the Panchayat were doing the same work and discharging the same duties.