Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 178 (GUJ)

Rameshbhai B. Parekh v. Dist. Registrar

2016-01-25

AKIL KURESHI

body2016
ORDER : Akil Kureshi, J. Petitioner has challenged his termination order dated 03.07.1995 as at Annexure-D to the petition in following background:- 1.1 Petitioner is working in the office of the Liquidator, Cooperatives as peon since many years. The petitioner and other similarly situated employees had approached the High Court by filing SCA No. 3775 of 1986 and connected matters, which came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 07/08.03.1995. Learned Single Judge directed the Government to frame a scheme for absorption of such employees on certain conditions. It is not in dispute that the Government has preferred LPAs against such judgment of the learned Single Judge and the appeals are pending. In pending LPA No. 481 of 1995 and connected appeals, I am informed that, as a latest development before the Division Bench on 03.11.2015, the Department agreed to give a lump sum of Rs. 50,000/- to each employee and pointed out that the process of finalization of scheme is going on. 1.2 In the meantime, it appears that the District Registrar, Cooperatives passed an order on 14.06.1995 appointing the petitioner on regular basis in terms of the order passed by the High Court. However, immediately thereafter, the Government passed the impugned order dated 03.07.1995 and terminated his services. 2. Learned AGP clarified that the discontinuation of the petitioner was on account of his wrong order of appointment by the Registrar of Cooperatives when the judgment of the learned Single Judge was in appeal before the Letters Patent Bench. He, however, did not dispute the averments of the Counsel for the petitioner that all other similarly situated employees have continued, of course, on the same position as earlier without the benefits of regularization and permanency. 3. The rights and privileges of the petitioner would have to be judged by the outcome of the LPA of the Government. Till then, he cannot seek benefits of regular Government servants. At the same time, Government also cannot treat him by discrimination and terminate his services, where services of other similarly situated staff are still continued. 4. In the result, the impugned order of termination dated 03.07.1995 is set aside. It is clarified that the petitioner shall continue on the same position as he was in prior to Registrar, Cooperatives passing his order dated 14.06.1995 Petition is disposed of accordingly.