AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.S. Jhaveri, J.—The petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 10th October 1990 passed by the Director of Municipalities in Appeal No. 29 of 1990 filed by the respondents partially allowing the appeal arising out of order dated 28th June 1990 passed by the Collector.
The petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis for a period of six months on the pay scale of Rs. 210 plus dearness allowance granted by the Government.
The petitioner''s nature of work revolved supervising and watch the work of Safai Kamdars and therefore he was more concerned with field work. However, the respondent was not satisfied with the work of the petitioner and therefore issued show cause notice to him. It is stated that he did not reply to the show cause notice against the proposal of removal from service.
The petitioner preferred an application u/s 258(1) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 where the Collector of Kaira allowed this application. Thereafter he preferred an appeal No. 29 of 1990 before Director of Municipalities wherein the appeal was partly allowed. Hence this petition.
On 20th February 1992 following order was passed:
This petition is already admitted and notice for interim relief was made returnable on 3rd Feb 1992. In response to the notice Mr. Harin P. Raval has appeared for the respondents. The order passed by the Director of Municipalities, dated 10th October 1990 is partially in favour of the petitioner in as much as the Director of Municipalities has directed by para 2 of the operative order to reinstate the petitioner in service and for the period for which he was not reinstated to grant him leave if he has leave to his credit. Said order passed as back as 10th October 1990 is not carried out by the respondent-Municipality and hence this petition. The petition is admitted and prima facie the direction issued by the second part of the operative order of Director of the Municipalities make it abundantly clear that there is positive direction in favour of petitioner and against the respondent-Municipality.
Mr. Harin P. Raval for the respondents have pointed out to this Court that in fact the Appeal of the Municipality is partially allowed and the earlier order, dated 28th June 1990 is quashed and set aside. The Director of Municipalities stated in the order that part of the order of the Collector whereby he has quashed the order of the Chief Officer, dated 20th April 1990 is bad. That part of the order is set aside. It may be so, but at this stage when the Court is concerned with the second part of the order of Director of Municipalities and that part of the order is clearly in favour of petitioner whereby the respondent-Municipality is directed to reinstate the petitioner. That order of the Director of Municipalities is not challenged by the Municipality and therefore the following interim order is required to be passed.
The respondent-Municipality is directed to carry out the order of the Director of Municipalities, dated 10th October 1990 by reinstating the petitioner in service by 1st March 1992 and to pay him the salary regularly from 1st March 1992 and also to pay him backwages from 1st January 1992 till date. As regards other backwages it shall have to be decided by the Court at the time of finally deciding the petition. It is clarified that it will be open to the respondent-Municipality to challenge the order of the Director of Municipalities by appropriate proceedings. Direct service is permitted.
It is not pointed out that the respondent Municipality has not challenged the order of the Director of Municipalities. By way of aforesaid order the petitioner was reinstated and he must have continued in service. Therefore after a period of almost of 18 years it would not be appropriate to disturb the said petition.
As regards backwages is concerned, the Collector has not granted the same. The petitioner has not worked during interregnum period and therefore I am of the view that in view of settled law no backwages can be granted to him.
The petitions stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.