Gujarat High Court
LPA/812/1995 of PK KHALSA Vs GUJ STATE SOCIAL WELFARE ADVOSORY BOARD on 20 November 1998
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No 812 of 1995 in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 608 OF 1981 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2037 OF 1995 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH ============================================================
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No 812 of 1995
in
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 608 OF 1981
with
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2037 OF 1995
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and
MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH
============================================================ -------------------------------------------------------------- PK KHALSAVersus GUJ STATE SOCIAL WELFARE ADVOSORY BOARD -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR PC MASTER for Appellant MR MANOJ N POPAT for Respondent No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for Respondent No. 2 SERVED BY RPAD - (N) for Respondent No. 3 MR BY MANKAD, ASST. GOVENT PLEADER for ��Respondent No. 4
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and �� MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH Date of decision: 20/11/98
ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per Patel, J. ) Against the dismissal of Special Civil Application No. 608/81 by learned Single Judge on 15/16th February 1995, the present appeal is preferred.
The petition was dismissed mainly on the ground that the respondent No.1 Board is neither an instrumentality nor an agency of the State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution. So far as the merits were concerned, it was kept open for the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. The appellant was also directed to make a representation and the authority was directed to consider the same and give due weightage to the fact that the petitioner worked for all this period of 17 years and that he has voluntarily retired during the pendency of this petition.
The question now involved in this matter is retirement benefit. Mr. Popat, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 Board states that in accordance with law, whatever benefit the petitioner is entitled to, will be given. In view of this statement, Mr. Master, learned advocate for the petitioner do not press this appeal. It is directed that in view of the fact that the appellant has retired long back, the respondent shall give whatever benefit the petitioner is entitled to according to law, within a period of two months from today. The appeal stands disposed of as not pressed with the aforesaid direction. In view of the aforesaid order passed in the appeal, Civil Application No. 2037/95 does not survive and it stands disposed of accordingly. Notice is discharged. csm./���-----------------