Gujarat High Court
SCA/5054/1982 of RAJUBHA JETHUBHA ZALA Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 12 December 1995
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5054 OF 1982 Date of decision: 12-12-1995 For Approval and Signature The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. K. KESHOTE 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
��Date of decision: 12-12-1995
For Approval and Signature
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. K. KESHOTE
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may beallowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see thefair copy of the judgment?
4. Whether this case involves a substantialquestion of law as to the interpretationof the Constitution of India,1950 or anyorder made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to theCivil Judge?
Mr. P.M.Raval for the petitioner
Mr. D.A.Bambania for the respondents
���Coram: S. K. KESHOTE,J
����(12-12-1995)
ORAL JUDGMENT:
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner in this case has challenged theaction of the respondents to revert him from the post ofP.S.I. to that of Head Constable. The petitioner waspromoted to the post of P.S.I. and posted at Mehsana PoliceStation, as per order dated 17-6-1982. Vide wirelessmessage dated 12th December, 1982 the Director General ofPolice, Gujarat State, directed for the reversion of thepetitioner. The petitioner filed this writ petition beforethis Court, and on 30th November, 1982 this court passedorder that the petitioner may continue to be on leavewithout prejudice to the rights and contentions of both thesides. Rule was issued on 1st December, 1983, and theaforesaid interim relief was ordered to continue till finaldisposal of the writ petition.
Page 1 of 2
3. It is not the case of the respondents that the reversion order has been given effect to. It is also not indispute that in the year 1982 when this writ petition wasfiled the petitioner was of the age of 56 years. Thepetitioner has retired thereafter in the year 1984 and hewas ordered to be retired from the post of P.S.I. When thiscourt has protected the right of the petitioner at theadmission stage by granting interim relief, which had theeffect of virtually granting the substantial relief, it maynow work prejudicial to the petitioner and cause him monetary loss in case the writ petition is dismissed. Whenit is not the case of the respondents that the reversion wasgiven effect to, I fail to see any justification at thisstage, when the petitioner has already retired from servicein the year 1984, to take out the benefits which havealready been availed of by him.
4. In the result this writ petition succeeds and thesame is allowed. The order of reversion of the petitioneris quashed and set aside. Rule made absoluteaccordingly,with no order as to costs.
���...........
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…