Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 311 (GUJ)

KANUBHAI MANGALBHAI HARIJAN v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2015-03-20

ABHILASHA KUMARI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing the supply of on an advance copy of the petition, waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is heard and decided finally. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have made the following prayers: (i) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order extending the benefits given to the Class IV Permanent Daily Wager employees of the Department of Horticulture should also be given to the petitioners who are working as Class IV Permanent Daily Wager employees with the Agriculture Department; (ii) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to consider the representation dated 6.3.2015 made by the petitioners to the respondent No.1 in accordance with law and in light of the Judgment of this Hon’ble Court and the Supreme Court as expeditiously as possible; (iii) To grant such other and further relief as may be deemed fit. 3. According to the petitioners, they have been working as Class-IV permanent daily wage employees with respondent No.3 – Deputy Director of Agriculture, Central Agricultural Laboratory, for the last more than 30 years. The petitioners are described as Laboratory Boys and are working on sanctioned posts. Though the petitioners have been made permanent after 10 years of service, they are still being treated as “Permanent Daily Wagers” and are being deprived of the full benefits available to the permanent employees. According to the petitioners, once the employees are made permanent, there can be no nomenclature such as “Permanent Daily Wagers” attached to such employees and they have to be treated as permanent for all intents and purposes. 4. Similarly situated persons had filed petitions, being Special Civil Application No.5699 of 1987 and connected matters, which were allowed by the Court vide judgment dated 02.05.2000. The respondents were directed to treat all the workmen in those petitions as permanent employees at par with other regular employees and to grant all benefits as such. 4. Similarly situated persons had filed petitions, being Special Civil Application No.5699 of 1987 and connected matters, which were allowed by the Court vide judgment dated 02.05.2000. The respondents were directed to treat all the workmen in those petitions as permanent employees at par with other regular employees and to grant all benefits as such. The order of the Single Judge was challenged before the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.958 of 2001 and connected appeals in Special Civil Application No.5699 of 1987 and connected matters. The Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed vide judgment dated 18.03.2011. The matter even reached the Supreme Court whereby the appeal of the State Government against the order of the Division Bench came to be rejected. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that benefits similar to those granted to other similarly situated persons have not been granted to them. Earlier, a petition was preferred by the Gujarat Rajya Ardha Sarkari Audhyogik Karmachari Sangh, being Special Civil Application No.5373 of 2014, espousing the cause of its members, which is identical to the case of the present petitioners. Pursuant to the order dated 05.05.2014 passed by this Court in the abovementioned petition, the representation made by the petitioner of that petition was decided and Government Resolution dated 02.12.2014 came to be issued by the Deputy Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation Department, in respect of the daily wagers working under the Directorate of Horticulture and Directorate of Animal Husbandry. The petitioners seek similar treatment and their prayer is that the benefit of Government Resolution dated 02.12.2014 should also be extended to them. 6. Heard Mr. Jayant P. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, appearing on the supply on an advance copy of the petition, and perused the averments made in the petition. 7. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that the petitioners have made a representation dated 06.03.2015 (Annexure-D) to respondent No.1, which may be directed to be considered and decided within a time bound period. 8. Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has no objection if an order, as prayed for, is passed. 9. 7. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that the petitioners have made a representation dated 06.03.2015 (Annexure-D) to respondent No.1, which may be directed to be considered and decided within a time bound period. 8. Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has no objection if an order, as prayed for, is passed. 9. Accordingly, the following order is passed: Respondent No.1 – Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation Department, shall consider and decide the representation dated 06.03.2015, made by the petitioners, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in light of the judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court, referred to hereinabove. 10. The petition is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. There shall be no orders as to costs. It is made clear that the Court has not entered into the merits of the case. 11. Direct Service is permitted.