Gujarat High Court
MCA/743/1998 of PRAVINKUMAR ISHWARLAL RUPALA Vs DAHYABHAI RAMJIBHAI PARMAR on 6 May 1998
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION No 743 of 1998 in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATIONNo 892 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION No 743 of 1998
in
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATIONNo 892 of 1998
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and
MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA
============================================================
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
-------------------------------------------------------------- PRAVINKUMAR ISHWARLAL RUPALAVersus DAHYABHAI RAMJIBHAI PARMAR -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR MUKUL SINHA for Petitioner MS PREETI S PARMAR for Respondent No. 1, 2
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and �� MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA Date of decision: 06/05/98
ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per: B.C.Patel,J.)
Mr. Parmar, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents, has submitted a statement suggesting that the respondent is inclined to reinstate the petitioner on certain conditions. Mr.Mukul Sinha, has strongly objected to such a move being adopted.
.RS 2
#. However, after hearing the learned advocates, the following order is passed:
The respondent shall reinstate the petitioner and shall pass a necessary resolution. As per the order passed by a Division Bench, the applicant is not reinstated and hence, for the period for which he is not given appointment, salary shall be paid. He should have been given appointment from 26-2-1998 and therefore, calculating the benefits from that date, the amount shall be paid. The petitioner shall report for duty on Monday, i.e. on 11th May, 1998 and shall be reinstated on that day. However, the benefits will bee given from 26-2-1998.
#. With this direction, this application is not required to be entertained any further.
****
radhan/