1. Heard Mr. A.S.Supehia, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Jyoti Mehta, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.
2. Learned Advocate Mr. Supehia has submitted that the husband of the petitioner was in service of the Government, who died on 16th June, 1998. The petitioner has prayed that the pay-scale of her husband be revised with retrospective effect and in her claim, the same ought to have been revised from the year 1978.
3. Ex-facie, the grievance voiced in the petition is hopelessly time barred and on that count alone, the petition needs to be rejected. It is noted that even if the husband of the petitioner, would have filed this petition in the year 2003 then also the same would have been termed as time barred and the aspect of delay is coming in the way of the petitioner not because she herself was not the employee but as noted above even the petition filed by her husband would have been dismissed being a stale claim.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Court of 3rd Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Junagadh in Regular Civil Suit No.615 of 1984, which was in case of some other employee, who according to the petitioner was similarly situated to the husband of the petitioner. This contention would not take the case of the petitioner any further for more than one reasons. Firstly, the view expressed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Junagadh would not bind this Court. Secondly, there the question of delay was not there. Further even the suit would have been barred by limitation and what was not possible directly is sought to be done indirectly, which can not be accepted.
5. In the totality, in my view, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) ak verma/63