Gujarat High Court
SCA/2008/1981 of SR DHEKNE Vs O N G C on 26 November 1996
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 2008 of 1981 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 2008 of 1981
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE
============================================================
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?
-------------------------------------------------------------- SR DHEKNE & OTHERSVersus OIL & NATURAL GAS COMMISSION -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR KETAN A DAVE for Petitioners MR RAVI R TRIPATHI for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE Date of decision: 26/11/96
ORAL JUDGEMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties. Having gone through the contents of the reply filed to the Special Civil Application by the respondents before this Court, I am satisfied that the grievances made by the petitioners, no more survives. The apprehension shown by the petitioners of adversely affecting of their promotional chances due to merger of the post of Demonstrator and came to be redesignated as Jr. technicians, is not well-founded. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been given promotion from time to time and all of them came to be promoted as Assistant Engineer with effect from 1-1-1986. The learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to say how any of the promotional right or any other monetary benefits of the petitioners is being affected because of the merger of the post of Demonstrator and to be redesignated the same as Junior Technician.
In the result, this Special Civil Application fails and the same is dismissed. Rule discharged.
**********
zgs/-