1.Heard Mrs. Sangeeta Pahwa and Mr. Dharmesh V. Shah for the petitioners and Ms. Chandarana learned AGP for the state authorities.
2. The subject matter in these petitions is the termination order dated 21st August 2004 Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Sun Aug 13 11:06:01 IST 2017 C/SCA/10818/2004 ORDER passed against the petitioners, which was not served upon them. The basis of filing the petitions was the caveat applications which were sent to the petitioners by the respondents. After filing of these petitions, alongwith affidavit-in-reply, impugned orders came to be served to the petitioners, informing about termination of their services from the post of field workers class-IV in the National Filaria Control Unit, Surat.
3. In affidavit-in-reply detailed contest is put forward on behalf of authorities which was taken note of and dealt with by this court before recording common oral order dated 28th October 2004. All contentions raised on behalf of Government is dealt with and negated by this court (Coram:- Honourable Mr. Justice M.S. Shah, as his lordships then was) as is reflected in the order dated 28th October 2004.
4. On 5th December 2012 an order was passed by this court as to why petitions be not allowed in terms of interim order dated 28th October 2004. To this learned AGP Ms. Chandarana has made detailed submissions and has supported the impugned order passed against the petitioners.The affidavit-in-reply dated 23rd Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Sun Aug 13 11:06:01 IST 2017 C/SCA/10818/2004 ORDER September 2004 is referred to by the learned AGP in support of her submissions. Be it noted that after taking into consideration the contents of the said affidavit-in-reply, the order staying the impugned order was passed on 28th October 2004. I see no reason to take a different view than what is reflected in order of this court dated 28th October 2004.
5. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned orders in the petitions dated 21stAugust 2004 qua petitioners are quashed and set aside. The petitioners shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. Petitions allowed and rule made absolute to the above extent.
(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) Manoj/6 Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Sun Aug 13 11:06:01 IST 2017