Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1331 (GUJ)

Himmatlal Hiralal Joshi v. State of Gujarat

2017-07-31

K.M.THAKER

body2017
JUDGMENT : K.M. THAKER, J. Heard Mr. Vaghela, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Goutam, learned AGP for the respondent - State. 1.1 Mr. Dagli, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has filed leave note, however, Mr. Malay Patel, learned advocate, for Mr. Dagli, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, is present. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:— “8(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to regularise the services of the petitioner by giving him work within all attached benefits on the position on which he is working at present.” 2.1 The petitioner has taken out this petition with a request that the respondent panchayat should be directed to regularize his service. 3. So as to support the said request, the petitioner has mentioned following details:— “2(1) The Petitioner respectfully submits that the petitioner has been working since more than 15 years at the respondent-Pay Centre School run by the respondent authorities and under the control of respondent No. 2 mainly and the petitioner has been assigned the work for four hours in a day and being paid salary of Rs. 900/- p.m. It is submitted that with regard to discharge of his services there is no comp1aint of any nature right from the beginning and the respondent Principal of the school has given a certificate also that the petitioner is working in the schoo1 since more than 15 years… (ii) The petitioner respectfully submits that the work which is being undertaken by the petitioner is filling up of drinking water, cleaning of the school and a1so sending and receiving of post and in addition to the said works several other works are also being taken from the petitioner. It is submitted that this work is part of the respondent administration and is longstanding work and there is definite need of said work in the school for smooth administration. It is further submitted that this basic work which the petitioner has undertaken is the need of the school which the pay centre is also in need of peon like the petitioner. Petitioner respectfully submits that about the need of class IV employee 1ike the petitioner certificate is also given by the Principal true copy whereof is annexed hereto and marked annexure “B”. Petitioner respectfully submits that about the need of class IV employee 1ike the petitioner certificate is also given by the Principal true copy whereof is annexed hereto and marked annexure “B”. (iii) The petitioner respectfully submits that the work which the petitioner is discharging is since 15 years continuously and his work is also being appreciated and there is no cause of complaint. Considering this 1ength of service and the fact that most of his 1ife petitioner has passed with this kind of service and now the petitioner has become overaged for other employment the petitioner's services are required to be regularized and are required to be made permanent even by afflux of time. (iv) The petitioner respectfully submits that time and again oral requests were made to the authorities and every time the authorities had conveyed that next occasion the request viii be considered and thereby uptil now the petitioner is continued in service and even at present the petitioner is discharging his services with utmost sincerity. It is respectfully submitted that recent1y the audit has raised objection which has been informed to the petitioner ora11y.” 4. So as to establish that he is serving with the respondent No. 3 school under the control and management of respondent No. 2 since long time, the petitioner has placed on record documents purportedly issued by the Principal of the school. The said documents are placed on record at Annexure - A and B (Page-12 and 13 of the petition). On the strength of the said two documents, the petitioner has claimed that he is serving with the respondent No. 3 school. 5. From the said documents, it emerges that the petitioner seems to have been engaged by the respondent No. 3 school for miscellaneous work like filling water tank, cleaning utensils, etc. and that he worked for about 4 hours per day for which he was paid Rs. 900/- per month. 5.1 On the strength of the said document, the petitioner claims regularization in service. 6. At the time of hearing of the petition, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in other talukas in same district and even in other districts, orders for regularization of similarly placed employees have been passed by the concerned Taluka Development Officer or the District Development Officer or the competent authority and the petitioner seeks parity with said persons. 6. At the time of hearing of the petition, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in other talukas in same district and even in other districts, orders for regularization of similarly placed employees have been passed by the concerned Taluka Development Officer or the District Development Officer or the competent authority and the petitioner seeks parity with said persons. 6.1 Any order of such nature is not available on record of this petition which is pending since 2005. 7. At the time of hearing of the petition, Mr. Vaghela, learned advocate for the petitioner also submitted that since past some time, the respondents have also stopped paying the wages to the petitioner even at the same rate and on same post at which the petitioner has been paid hitherto. 8. In this background and more particularly in light of the submission that in case of other similarly placed persons orders of regularization have been paid, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would approach the competent authority with such instances i.e. copies of such order to support and justify his demand for regularization in accordance with policy of the State Government in service on ground of parity and in view of the fact that he has been serving with the respondent school since more than 15 years. 9. If and when the petitioner approaches concerned authority with his request/claim and if such claim is supported by instances where service of similarly placed persons are regularized, then, the concerned authority will take into account such instances and pass appropriate order in respect of the petitioner. For the said purpose, the competent authority will consider the relevant and applicable policy. 9.1 Besides this, it is clarified that if the salary for any period is not paid to the petitioner, then, the petitioner may submit such details to the competent authority and the competent authority will expeditiously take necessary steps to pay unpaid salary for the period for which the petitioner has worked but salary is not paid. Such amount should be paid as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 2 weeks from the date on which the petitioner submits such details. 10. With aforesaid observations and clarifications, present petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to aforesaid extent.