Amarsingh Manabhai Pagi & vs Director

AMARSINGH MANABHAI PAGI & 1....Petitioner(s) Versus DIRECTOR, DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY &

2....Respondent(s) =================================================== Appearance:

MR NIRAL R MEHTA, ADVOCATE for Petitioner(s) No.1­2 MR KIRIT R PATEL for MR HS MUNSHAW, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ­ 3 =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Date : 04/05/2016 ORAL ORDER (1) By way of this petition the petitioners have prayed for direction directing the respondents to give benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and also order dated 21.05.1998 to them, and put them in regular pay­scale, and to pay salary to the petitioners accordingly with all the consequential benefits available from the date when they are entitled to get the benefits.

(2) A specific contention is raised in Paragraph No.5 of the petition that other employees, those who have completed ten years of service, are given benefit of Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and further they are put in regular pay­scale, and also granted 4th and 5th Pay Commissions.

(3) Attention is also drawn to this Court to letter dated 21.05.1998 wherein Commissioner, Rural Development, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, has written to the Director of District Rural Development Agency i.e. respondent No.1 to give the benefit arising out of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Accordingly, the respondents had acted and granted the benefits Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to various persons, whose orders are at Annexure­C to the petition.

(4) Mr.Kirit R. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, states that Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 does not apply in the case of the petitioners.

(5) In my view, the said contention is erroneous in view of letter dated 21.05.1998 written by Commissioner, Rural Development, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, to respondent No.1. Respondents have also acted on the said resolution and granted benefits to the other employees.

No affidavit controverting the said fact is filed in the present petition.

(6) Matter is of 2004. Perusing the letter dated 21.05.1998 and the averments made in the petition and various orders passed by the respondents, I am of the view that the cases of Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Thu May 05 03:50:23 IST 2016 C/SCA/2013/2004 ORDER the petitioners deserve consideration in view of letter dated 21.05.1998. Accordingly, I direct the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners in light of the letter dated 21.05.1998 and various orders produced in the petition. Such decision shall be taken within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.

(7) Petition is disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.

Sd/­ [A.S. SUPEHIA, J] *** Bhavesh­[pps]* Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Thu May 05 03:50:23 IST 2016