Nathalal Naranbhai Nakum and Others vs State of Gujarat and Others

H.K. Rathod, J.—Heard learned advocate Mr. A.S. Supehai appearing on behalf of Appellants and learned AGP Mr. A.L. Sharma appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1.

In present appeal, Appellants have challenged judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No. 3588 of 1982, decided on 26.6.1997.

Learned advocate Mr. Supehia appearing on behalf of Appellants submitted that learned Single Judge has not granted actual benefits, in case if they are found suitable for promotion and only granted notional benefits and in such circumstances, principle of ''no work no pay'' is not applicable and in case if Appellants are found suitable, they are entitled to actual difference of service benefits which were given to junior persons, those who were promoted prior in point of time from the Appellants.

Learned AGP Mr. Sharma appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 has raised contention that no such details are made available by Appellants before this Court, as to what happened to the directions issued by learned Single Judge of this Court, whether Appellants were found suitable for promotion or not and whether they were actually promoted by the Department or not. Therefore, he submitted that in absence of that material, this Court may not pass any orders.

We have considered submissions made by both learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties. Considering the fact that matter is of 1982 where learned Single Judge has set aside the Government Resolution dated 3.8.1981 (Annexure-A) and directed to the State Government to decide question of seniority on the basis of total length of service and continuous officiation in the cadre, which resulted into setting aside the seniority list dated 10.8.1982 and further directed to Respondent - State Government to prepare fresh seniority list in accordance with the aforesaid directions issued by learned Single Judge and order of promotion dated 21.8.1982 (Annexure-D) where certain promotions have been made to the post of Senior Pharmacist on temporary basis and these directions shall be considered to be a continue in the post of senior pharmacist on temporary basis and thereafter, to prepare final selection list, at that occasion case of Appellants shall be considered by State Government in the post of Senior Pharmacist with reference to the date on which their juniors have been given promotion.

Considering these observations and directions issued by learned Single Judge, before us, no material has been placed on record by learned advocate Mr. Supehia and also he is not having any instructions, as to whether present Appellants were found suitable for promotion or not and in absence of that, if subsequently Appellants were found suitable for promotion and actually promotion order has been issued in their favour, then in such circumstances, it is open for Appellants to make a detailed representation to the Respondents to consider their case about actual benefits by the State Government.

As and when such representation will be made by Appellants, if entitled to do so, the State Government is directed to consider the same in accordance with law.

In view of above, there is no substance in present Letters Patent Appeal. Accordingly, present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. Notice is discharged.