State of Gujarat and Another vs Rathod Bhalabhai Bhikhabhai

V.M. Sahai, J.—We have heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. N.J. Shah for the Appellants and learned Counsel Mr. Hardik

C. Rawal for the Respondents.

2 These Letters Patent Appeals have been filed challenging judgment dated 7.10.2006 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application

No. 6112 of 2006 to Special Civil Application 6116 of 2006. It is necessary to extract operative part of the order from para 11 onwards:

In view of these submissions and considering the observations made by the Apex Court as well as this Court, as referred above, it is open for

the Petitioners to make detailed representation to the Respondents within a period of one month from the date of receiving the copy of this order.

As and when Respondents receives the representation from the Petitioners, it is directed to the Respondents to consider the representation of the

Petitioners and examine the grievance in light of the decision of the Apex Court as well as this Court and pass appropriate reasoned order in

accordance with law keeping in mind that work is available with the Respondents and same work has been taken by Respondents from another

agency and decide it within a period of two months from the date of receiving the copy of this order. In the case if the representation of the

Petitioners is rejected by the Respondents, it will be open for the Petitioners to challenge the same before appropriate forum in accordance with

law.

In view of the aforesaid observations and directions, present petitions are disposed of, without expressing any opinion on merits. Direct service

is permitted.

It is directed to the Respondents not to terminate the services of the Petitioners till their services are regularized by the Respondents.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that since the learned Single Judge has directed the Respondents(Appellants

herein) to decide the representation of the Petitioners (Respondents herein), no interference is called for. Effect of para 13 of the order of the

learned Single Judge is that the Appellants could not terminate the services of the Respondents till their services are regularized by the Appellants.

If this direction was issued, nothing remained to be decided in the representation. Therefore, the direction contained in para 13 of the judgment is

uncalled for and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we set aside the direction given in para 13 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge and

the Appellants are directed to take final decision on the representation made by the Respondents herein pursuant to the direction given in para 11

of the judgment of the learned Single Judge within the time fixed in para 11. Time fixed in para 11 of the judgment shall commence from today.

We make it clear that we have not entered into the merits of the case.

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed. We set aside the direction given in para 13 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the

Appellants are directed to take final decision on the representation made by the Respondents herein pursuant to the direction given in para 11 of

the judgment of the learned Single Judge within the time fixed in para 11. Time fixed in para 11 of the judgment shall commence from today.