Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Ahmedabad vs Director

High Court Of Gujarat|08 May, 2012

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Heard Mr. Asthavadi, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Asim Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent - Corporation.
2. The petitioner has taken out present petition seeking below mentioned relief:-
"7(b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to issue Pension Payment Order Books (P.P.O.) within one month as undertaken before Ld. Lok Adalat."
3. Having regard to the fact that on earlier occasion, this Court had, under orders passed from time to time, directed the respondent Corporation to issue Pension Payment Order Books ["PPO Books" for short], however, the respondent Corporation did not comply with the directions to issue the PPO Books and also failed to observe the time limit prescribed by the Court.
3.1 Aggrieved by the inaction and default on the part of the respondent Corporation, the petitioner has preferred present petition seeking above quoted relief.
4. This Court, taking serious note of the conduct of the respondents of not complying the directions issued by this Court, directed the respondents i.e. Dy. Municipal Commissioner and Administrative Officer to remain present in the Court and to explain the cause for delay and inaction.
Accordingly, the Dy. Municipal Commissioner and the Administrative Officer remained present on 7.5.2012.
During the hearing, concerned officers and learned advocate for the respondent - Corporation tried to explain the practical difficulties which the respondent Corporation was facing in view of the large number of employees to whom the PPO Books have to be issued and also in view of the fact that the petitioner Union was insisting for certain details to be incorporated and reflected in the PPO Books which called for reprogramming of the entire computer programme by which the PPO Books were being prepared by the respondent Corporation, in compliance with Court's direction.
5. Ultimately, the concerned officers assured the Court that by today, the Corporation would try to complete and issue PPO Books in respect of atleast 100 employees.
6. Today, during hearing, it is informed that the respondent Corporation has completed preparation of 350 PPO Books and the same will be handed over to the petitioner Union and/or forwarded to the concerned employee.
6.1 At this stage, Mr. Asthavadi, learned advocate, has submitted that in the interest of the employees, the petitioner Union has requested the respondent Corporation to incorporate certain relevant details in the PPO Books and during process of deliberations between the officers of the respondent corporation and the union, the parties have arrived at consensus and the Corporation has agreed, in principle, to reflect the details suggested by the petitioner union. The petitioner union has, in turn, acknowledged the problem being faced by the respondent corporation, particularly the time constraint and has accepted that the respondent corporation would require reasonable time to re-programme the details and prepare PPO Books.
7. Therefore, present petition is disposed of with below mentioned order and directions:-
7.1 The petitioner union will give in writing within a week from today, the details which according to the employees need to be incorporated in the PPO Books.
7.2 The respondent corporation will take into consideration the same and make efforts to ensure that as many details as possible may be incorporated and reflected in the PPO Books of the employees. If necessary, reprogramming of the details may be undertaken by the respondent Corporation.
7.3 After completing such exercise, the respondent Corporation shall take steps to expeditiously issue PPO Books to all concerned employees. The respondent Corporation and concerned officers shall ensure that the entire exercise be completed, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within period of 2 months from the date on which the petitioner union submits the request, as mentioned hereinabove.
With the aforesaid observations and direction, present petition stands disposed of.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc Top
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Ahmedabad vs Director

Court

High Court Of Gujarat

JudgmentDate
08 May, 2012