Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 522 (GUJ)

Pankaj Narottam Ghaghada v. State of Gujarat

2009-07-30

M.R.SHAH

body2009
JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order directing the respondent authorities to give employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground being the dependent of deceased Narottam Ghaghada who died in harness. It is also further prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order directing the respondents authority to release all service benefits which would be available with the regular employees of the respondent authority in favour of the petitioner and his mother in view of the decision of the Labour Court, Rajkot and this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2225 of 1988. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that father of the petitioner Shri Narottam Ghaghada was appointed with the respondent No. 2 as work charge Mistry and the said appointments were made for a period of 29 days and an artificial service break was given to all employees of the respondent No. 2. That, petitioner's father and other similarly situated employees has approached the Labour Court, Rajkot by way Reference No. 22 of 1985. The said Reference was finally disposed of by the Labour Court, Rajkot by its judgment and award dated 5.9.1987 in favour of the workmen by directing the respondents to regularise the workmen w.e.f. 1.4.1985. That the District Panchayat, Jamnagar preferred Special Civil Application No. 2225 of 1988 before this Court and this Court passed interim order directing the District Panchayat to pay to the employees monthly salary equal to the salary received by regular employees of the Panchayat. That thereafter, the union of the work charge employees made an offer of compromise to the District Panchayat through the District Development Officer in view of the fact that dispute remain pending for a very long time. That as per the said compromise offered, the respondent authorities passed a resolution dated 15.7.1998, whereby it was decided that employees completed 5 years service as on 1.10.1988 were to be regularised and service rendered after 1.10.1988 was to be counted for pension and other service benefits. That pursuant to the said compromise the aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 2225 of 1988 came to be disposed of in terms of resolution dated 15.7.1998. That pursuant to the said compromise the aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 2225 of 1988 came to be disposed of in terms of resolution dated 15.7.1998. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that name of the petitioner's father was incorporated in the said list of the beneficiaries. That the petitioner's father died in harness on 23.8.1998 before he could enjoy the fruits of long standing litigation. That the respondent authority passed the resolution dated 5.10.1998 whereby service of almost 125 workmen were regularised as per the compromise/order recorded in Special Civil Application No. 2225 of 1988. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that though the name of the petitioner's father was not incorporated in the list attached to the resolution dated 5.10.1998, the benefits of the order of the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 2225 of 1988 stood extended to the petitioner's father since on the date of judgment in Special Civil Application No. 2225 of 1988, he was alive. It is submitted that the benefits of the said order and the resolution has yet not reached to the petitioner or his family by way of pension and service benefits. 2. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that he has applied to the respondent authorities in prescribed form to grant him an employment on compassionate ground as per the Rules since the father of the petitioner expired while in service with the respondents whose service is regularised as per the judgment of the Labour Court, Rajkot and this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2225 of 1988. That the said request was made in the year 1998. It is submitted that in spite of the repeated representations neither the petitioner is appointed on compassionate ground on the death of his father nor the petitioner and his family are given the benefits of pensionary and other service benefit flowing from the judgment of the Labour Court, Rajkot and this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2225 of 1988. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Shri Nirav Thakkar, learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that there was compromise between the union of the work charge employees and District Panchayat through the District Development Officer and resolution dated 15.7.1998 came to be passed and it was decided that the employees, who had completed 5 years of service as on 1.10.1988, were to be regularised and the service rendered after 1.10.1988 was to be counted for pension and other service benefits and on the aforesaid resolution being passed, Special Civil Application No. 2225 of 1985 came to be disposed of and name of the petitioner's father was also included in the said list of the beneficiaries and, therefore, the service of the petitioner's father is to be treated as regularised and, therefore, on the death of his father, petitioner and his family members are entitled to all the service benefits inclusive of pension etc. as if the service of the petitioner's father has been regularised. It is submitted that accordingly on the death of his father petitioner is also entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present Special Civil Application by directing the concerned respondent to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground as well as to grant all the benefits available to the petitioner and his family members on the death of his father inclusive of pensionary benefits etc. considering the decision of the Labour Court, Rajkot as well as this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2225 of 1988. 4. Petition is opposed by Shri P.V. Hathi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent District Panchayat. An affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the respondent District Panchayat. It is submitted that as per the resolution dated 15.7.1998 all the work charge employees on completion of five years from 15.10.1988 were not required to be regularised. It is submitted that as per the clause 5 of the said resolution i.e. work charge employees who were having requisite educational qualification were to be absorbed/regularised on the post on which they were serving and with respect to others they were to be treated as unskilled labourer. It is submitted that as per the clause 5 of the said resolution i.e. work charge employees who were having requisite educational qualification were to be absorbed/regularised on the post on which they were serving and with respect to others they were to be treated as unskilled labourer. It is submitted that so far as the petitioner's father is concerned, he was not having requisite educational qualification and, therefore, his service was not regularised and he was treated as unskilled labourer. It is submitted that Special Civil Application No. 2225 of 1988 came to be disposed of in terms of resolution dated 15.7.1998. It is further submitted in reply that whatever is due and payable to the petitioner's father as unskilled labourer is paid to them. It is submitted that on the death of the petitioner's father an amount of Rs. 51,170/- towards State Group Insurance is already paid to his heirs and no other amount remained payable, in view of his status as unskilled labourer. Therefore, it is submitted that petition so far as relief of retrial benefits is concerned, is required to be rejected. It is further submitted that so far as the prayer of the petitioner to appoint him on compassionate ground on the death of his father is concerned, as such the State Government by his letter dated 1.2.2001 has already rejected the proposal which fact the petitioner has not disclosed in the petition, even though he was aware of the said decision and though he himself made an application to reconsider the matter by his application dated 16.2.2001. It is further submitted that even otherwise, as the father of the petitioner was unskilled labourer and his services were not regularised on his death petitioner is not entitled to appointment on the compassionate ground as the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground is not applicable to the employee who was serving as unskilled labourer. Under the circumstances, it is submitted that prayer of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is rightly rejected and is not entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present Special Civil Application. 5. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. Under the circumstances, it is submitted that prayer of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is rightly rejected and is not entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present Special Civil Application. 5. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. Petitioner is claiming the right on the basis of the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court and the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2225 of 1988. It is required to be noted that there was a compromise between the union of the work charge employees and the District Panchayat and a resolution dated 15.7.1998 came to be passed whereby, it was decided to regularise the service of those work charge employees who have completed five years service w.e.f. 1.10.1988. However, as per the clause 5 of the said resolution, only those work charge employees who were having the requisite educational qualification were to be absorbed/regularised on the post on which they were working and with respect to others i.e. not having requisite educational qualification they were to be continued/treated as unskilled labourer. This Court disposed of the Special Civil Application No. 2225 of 1988 in terms of the resolution of the District Panchayat dated 15.7.1998. Admittedly, the petitioner's father was not having requisite educational qualification and, therefore, he was continued to be treated as unskilled labourer. It is to be noted that, therefore, when the resolution was passed on 5.10.1998 the services of all most 150 workmen were regularised as per the resolution dated 15.10.1998 and the order in Special Civil Application No. 2225 of 1988 the name of the petitioner's father was not incorporated in the list attached to the said resolution. Under the circumstances, when the petitioner's father was not having requisite educational qualification and his services were not regularised and he was treated and continued as unskilled labourer only the prayer of the petitioner to grant of the benefits like pension etc. on the death of his father, treating the service of the petitioner's father has regularised cannot be granted. As per the resolution dated 15.10.1998 petitioner's father was entitled to the benefits as unskilled labourer only. 6. on the death of his father, treating the service of the petitioner's father has regularised cannot be granted. As per the resolution dated 15.10.1998 petitioner's father was entitled to the benefits as unskilled labourer only. 6. No so far as the prayer of the petitioner to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground on the death of his father is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that there was already a decision of the State Government dated 1.2.2001 and it appears that though the petitioner was aware about the same, as the petitioner himself made a request to consider the said decision while representation dated 16.2.2001, petitioner has not disclosed the same in the petition. Be that it may, even otherwise considering the fact that petitioner's father was unskilled labourer, the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground is not applicable to the unskilled labourer and, therefore, on the death of his father who was unskilled labourer, petitioner is not entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. Under the circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on the death of his father who was serving as unskilled labourer cannot be granted. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, petition fails and deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with an observation that if the petitioner and his family would be entitled to benefits treating the petitioner's father as unskilled labourer and if anything is due and payable to the petitioner and/or his family treating the petitioner's father as unskilled labourer as per the resolution of the District Panchayat dated 15.7.1988 the same shall be paid to the petitioner and his family, if anything is still due and payable. With these, present Special Civil Application is dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. Petition dismissed.