K.M.THAKER,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Jadeja, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Parikh, learned AGP for respondent No.1 - State. None for respondent No.2. Though served, no one has entered appearance for the respondent No.2.
(2.) In this petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:- "12(A) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the Respondent No.2 to pay the Petitioner the retirement benefits in the form of Gratuity and Leave Encashment, after calculating the same as per her service records, wherein she had served for in all 24 years and 4 months in the set up of respondent No.2 and eventually retired on 30.11.2013."
(3.) At the outset, learned advocate for the petitioner clarified that though in present petition, the petitioner has raised claim for gratuity as well as leave encashment, subsequently (i.e. after submission of present petition), the respondent has paid the amount payable towards leave encashment and that therefore, the claim or dispute with regard to the petitioner's demand for payment of leave encashment does not survive and the only claim and dispute, which survives so far as present petition is concerned, is related to gratuity. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.2 has not paid any amount towards gratuity. 3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that a similar claim (i.e. claim for gratuity) by similarly placed employee against the very same respondent was raised in Special Civil Application No.16122 of 2005. The said claim is determined by this Court vide order dated 17.7.2013 and that therefore, any issue related to respondent's obligation to pay gratuity to the employees who have rendered qualifying service, is not in dispute. 3.2 So as to support the submission that this Court has held that the respondent No.2 is obliged to pay gratuity to its employees who rendered (completed) qualified service is considered and decided by this Court on the basis of other precedence learned advocate for the petitioner placed on record order dated 17.7.2013 in Special Civil Application No.16122 of 2005 and he submitted that present petition may be decided and appropriate order on the same line may be passed. 3.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in Special Civil Application No.16122 of 2005, the respondent No.4 was the same party (i.e. Gujarat State Bharat Scouts and Guide - the respondent No.2 herein). Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in Special Civil Application No.16122 of 2005, the respondent No.1 was State of Gujarat, the respondent No.2 was Commissioner of Mid Day Meals and Schools, the respondent No.3 was State Inspector for Physical Education and respondent No.4 was Gujarat State Bharat Scouts and Guide. ;