Heard Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Chitaliya, learned AGP for the respondent No.1, and Ms. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner has taken out present petition seeking below mentioned reliefs/directions:-
“8(A) That the Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dateed 28.6.2011 passed by the respondent no.2;
(B) That the Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari holding that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of higher pay scale on completion of 9 years of service on 15.6.1995 and not on 15.6.1996;”
3. So far as the respondent No.2 is concerned, Ms. Shah, learned advocate, has submitted that the respondent No.2 has not entertained the application of the petitioner on technical ground because earlier the case was considered by the District Court, Bhavnagar and that therefore, the respondent No.2 considered it not to entertain the petitioner's application because it would amount to sitting in appeal over the decision of the District Court, Bhavnagar. On such ground, the application of the petitioner was not entertained.
She also clarified that in view of the decision dated 15.5.2008 in Special Civil Application No.6767 of 2008, subject to factual aspects, so far as legal position is concerned, confirmation as regards compliance of other factual aspects, requirements and conditions, can be examined by the respondent No.1.
4. So far as respondent No.1 is concerned, the only response given by the said respondent is to be found in para-8 of the reply affidavit dated 24.2.2012, which read thus:-
“8. It is submitted that Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Surat had rejected her application vide order dated 28.6.2011. Thereafter, she has never made any representation or request to the Legal Department to consider her case. Instead of that she has directly preferred the above numbered petition.”
From the said reply, it appears that the respondent No.1 is not taking any decision only because the petitioner has not made any representation after the decision communicated to her by the respondent No.2.
5. This can hardly be said to be a just and sustainable reason for not deciding the petitioner's application for benefit of higher pay scale, after 15 years.
6. Having regard to the details mentioned by the petitioner in her petition and submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner as well as upon considering the reply given by respondent No.2, it appears appropriate to dispose of present petition, at this stage, with below mentioned directions:-
6.1 The respondent No.1 is directed to treat present petition as representation by the petitioner. It would still be open and permissible to the petitioner to submit further application / representation stating the relevant and necessary details in addition to present petition, within 15 days from today.
6.2 The respondent No.1 shall take necessary and appropriate decision on or before 15.6.2012 and pass necessary and appropriate order upon considering the facts of the case of the petitioner and the decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner with a copy to the respondent No.2. If the decision is not taken within the time limit, mentioned hereinabove, the concerned officer shall be personally answerable to the Court.
6.3 If the petitioner does not receive any communication from the office of respondent No.1 on or before 22.6.2012, then, it will be open to the petitioner to revive present petition.
6.4 It is further clarified that if the decision is against the petitioner, then, present order will not stand in the way of petitioner to take out appropriate action / proceedings in appropriate Forum.
With the aforesaid observations, clarifications and direction, present petition stands disposed of. Notice is discharged.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc