Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 30 (GUJ)

Anil Ramchandra Jagtap v. State of Gujarat

2018-01-09

A.S.SUPEHIA

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. In the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 16.09.2009, wherein the case of the petitioners for reinstatement and regularization is rejected. 2. The petitioners were appointed as Peon Cum Water Server under the respondent authorities. The details of them are reproduced as under:- Sr. No. Name Selected through interview committee or not Date of appointment 1 Dattaram @ Daitu Chimanbhai Uttekar No. 01/03/91 5726/06 1651/07 2 Sandesh Sitaram Kokate No. 26.12.1997 5238/06 1505/07 3 Yogeshkumar K. Datania No. 16.06.1989 5378/06 1639/07 4 Anil Ramchand Jagtap No. 30.01.1991 5097/06 1637/07 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they have already completed 10 years of service and they are entitled for regularization in view of the Government Resolution dated 01.05.2007. The petitioners have asserted in the petition that they were selected on the basis of their performance after under going the interview process held by the respondent authorities. Since the petitioners were serving on temporary posts and since long they represented before the respondent authorities to absorb them amongst Class-IV posts in the said respondent Institute or to regularize them, no decision was taken on the representations. Hence, the petitioners were constrained to approach this Court by filing petition along with other petitioners. By the judgment and order dated 18.09.2006 , this Court (D.H.Waghela, J.) passed in Special Civil Application No. 4355 of 2006 directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of part time workmen working in the said Department for more than 10 years for their regularization. Instead of regularizing their service, they were terminated from the services vide order dated 12.01.2007. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment of this Court, the State Government passed Resolution dated 01.05.2007, for one time regularization of those employees, who completed more than 10 years of service. 5. Ms.Dipali Bajpai, learned advocate for Ms.Sadhna Sagar, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have fulfilled the criteria of Resolution dated 01.05.2007 which was framed by the State Government pursuant to the judgment dated 18.09.2006 passed by this Hon'ble Court in group of petitions. She has submitted that the identical situated employees to the petitioners, who approached this Court were granted interim relief vide order dated 16.12.2009 passed in Civil Application No.1014 of 2009. in Letters Patent Appeal No.107 of 2009. She has submitted that the identical situated employees to the petitioners, who approached this Court were granted interim relief vide order dated 16.12.2009 passed in Civil Application No.1014 of 2009. in Letters Patent Appeal No.107 of 2009. She has pointed out that subsequently, the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment and order dated 07.07.2017, passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.107 of 2009, disposed of the said appeal by observing that in view of the fact that the appellants/petitioners have continued in service for sufficiently long period of time, after passing of the interim relief order in the Year 2009, interests of justice, it would be served if direction to be issued to the respondent authorities to continue the appellants in service. Thus, she has submitted that the petitioners cannot be discriminated to the similarly situated employees working in the same Department. 6. Learned advocate for the petitioners has also asserted that the impugned order being non-speaking order is required to be quashed and set aside, as the same does not deal with the provisions of the Resolution dated 01.05.2007 vis.a.vis. Judgment of this Court. Hence, she has urged that impugned order does not require to be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. Mr.Chintan Dave, learned AGP for the respondent authorities has placed reliance on the affidavit filed by the respondent no.2. He has stated that the petitioners are terminated from the services in the Year 2009 and after long passage of time, no relief can be granted to them. He has also submitted that the petitioners do not fulfill the criteria of Resolution dated 01.05.2007 and hence, their services were rightly terminated. He has also submitted that the State Government introduced policy, as one time measure to regularize services of those employees, who have completed more than 10 years of service and who were working for six hours as on 10.05.2006. He has also submitted that the appointments of the petitioners were not made after following prescribed procedure of recruitment, which is followed in the case of government employees. 8. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 9. A perusal of the impugned order dated 16.09.2009 will clarify that same is non-speaking order. The impugned order refers to the judgment dated 07.08.2009 passed in Special Civil Nos.23163 of 2007 to 23180 of 2007. 8. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 9. A perusal of the impugned order dated 16.09.2009 will clarify that same is non-speaking order. The impugned order refers to the judgment dated 07.08.2009 passed in Special Civil Nos.23163 of 2007 to 23180 of 2007. It also refers to the Government Resolution dated 01.05.2007. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners along with others filed Special Civil Application Nos.23163 of 2007 to 23180 of 2007 praying for direction to consider their case as per Government Resolution dated 01.05.2007. By the order dated 07.08.2009, this Court directed the respondent authorities to consider the cases of such petitioners as per Government Resolution dated 01.05.2007. Despite the aforesaid directions, the respondent no.2 has not referred to the observations made by this Court in the judgment dated 18.09.2006 passed in Special Civil Application No.4355 of 2006 and other allied matters, wherein the petitioners had also preferred similar writ petition. No provisions of the Government Resolution dated 01.05.2007 are considered and dealt with vis.a.vis. the case of the petitioners whether they are eligible as per said resolution or not? Thus, the impugned order being a non-speaking order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities hereby directed to pass fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is further directed that the respondent authorities shall consider their service, as referred hereinabove inspite of judgment dated 18.09.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.4355 of 2006 and allied matters. 10. It is further directed that the respondent authorities shall also consider the judgment dated 07.07.2017 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.107 of 2009 while considering their case. In case, it is found that the petitioners are similarly situated to the petitioners of Letters Patent Appeal No.107 of 2009 and they deserve same treatment, necessary order shall be passed governing their reinstatement and their regularization of service. The entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from today. With the aforesaid observations and directions, present petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.