Gujarat High Court
SCA/3730/1989 of PANKAJKUMAR MORARBHAI CONTRACTOR Vs H C HALDAR on 30 November 2000
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 3730 of 1989 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements? 2. To be
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 3730 of 1989
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI
============================================================
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 : YES
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO
of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO
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? : NO
-------------------------------------------------------------- PANKAJKUMAR MORARBHAI CONTRACTOR
Versus H C HALDAR
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
MR RC JANI for Petitioner
MR PRANAV G DESAI for Respondent No. 1
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI
Date of decision: 30/11/2000
ORAL JUDGEMENT
The petitioner had prayed for a direction on the Municipal Commissioner of the Baroda Municipal Corporation to issue order of his appointment as an Executive Engineer in compliance with the Board's Resolution dated 23.12.1987. In the affidavit-in-reply which has been filed the municipal authorities have stated that the petitioner has been appointed as Executive Engineer by order dated 16.6.1989, at stated that the petitioner has been appointed as Executive Engineer by order dated 16.6.1989, at Annexure-I to the reply, and that he has also been paid necessary wages for the said post from 16.6.1989. In view of this order the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the major part of the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed and therefore the petition states that the major part of the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed and therefore the petition now would not survive. However, if any benefit remains to be given to the petitioner on the basis of this promotion, it may be left open to the petitioner to approach the Corporation in the matter. The petition is therefore rejected on the ground it does not survive in view of the promotion order of the petitioner issued as stated in the affidavit-in-reply. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief stands vacated.
2 If the petitioner makes any application for consequential reliefs which may not have been given to him, such application will be duly considered and appropriate order will be made in accordance with law by the municipal authorities expeditiously.
����***
(mohd)