1. This Court (Coram: Anant S. Dave, J.) vide order dated 9.11.2011 has passed the following order:-
"Leave to amend.
Mr.
Bipin Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner, who was initially appointed as a Rojamdar Clerk-cum-Typist with effect from 01.06.1996. Thereafter, additional charge of computer operator was given to the petitioner on 1.11.2000. The petitioner is physically challenged having disability of more than 75% and, therefore, under the provisions of Persons with Disabilities [Equal Opportunities and Protection of Rights and Full Participation] Act, 1995 {for short, the Act} it is obligatory on the part of the respondent authorities to reserve 3% of vacancies for such persons like the petitioner. It is further submitted by order dated 02.07.2007 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 16557 of 2007 filed by the petitioner directed the respondent authorities to consider the case sympathetically in light of the provisions of the Act, but no final decision is taken in spite of the reminder sent by the petitioner on 04.05.2010 to the highest authority of the Department of Urban Housing and Urban Development. Even the Regional Director, Municipalities, State of Gujarat has also addressed a communication dated 29.10.2010 to the Chief Officer, Bhayavar Municipal Borough, but in vain.
In view of the above and considering the provisions of the Act when the petitioner was appointed initially on the post of Clerk and for such post sanction was duly accorded and now the petitioner is duly qualified to continue as an operator having requisite qualification, nonpayment of regular pay scale by placing the petitioner in a permanent basic and granting or conferring benefits of permanency in spite of the directions of the court, amounts to willful defiance by respondent No.4, at this stage. Therefore, if no decision is taken in terms of the order dated 02.07.2007 passed in Special Civil Application No.1557 of 2007, the Chief Officer, Bhayavadar Municipal Bourough, Bhayavadar shall remain present on the returnable date.
Issue notice returnable on 21th November, 2011."
2. In response to the notice issued, respondent No.4 has filed affidavit in reply and it is also pointed by Mr. Dipak Sanchela, learned advocate for respondent No.4 that respondent No.4 has already submitted the proposal.
3. Considering the observations made by this Court, as above, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to file affidavit in reply on or before 27.2.2012. If no affidavit is filed, respondent No.2 shall personally remain present before this Court. S.O. to 1.3.2012.
Registry is directed to serve a copy of this order to Ms. Megha Chitaliya, learned AGP for onward communication.
[R.M.CHHAYA, J.] mrpandya Top