Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1009 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Haresh Arjanbhai Parmar

2023-08-11

N.V.ANJARIA, SUNITA AGARWAL

body2023
JUDGMENT : SUNITA AGARWAL, J. 1. Heard Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General with Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah, learned Government Pleader assisted by learned AGPs Ms. Shruti Dhruve and Mr. Vinay Vishen for the State appellant, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for appellants in the connected matters and Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Vidhi Bhatt, Ms. Shikha Panchal and Ms. Aditi Raol, learned advocates appearing for the private respondents-original writ petitioners. 2. These intra-court appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 19.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents herein, along with other connected writ petitions with the following directions: “22. For all the aforesaid reasons as discussed hereinabove considering the categories namely 8 in number, the petitioners are held to be entitled to the benefit of Circular dated 16.7.2019 and, therefore, all these petitions are allowed and the rejections if any, on these grounds as mentioned hereinabove are quashed and set aside.” 3. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that in this bunch of appeals, the State appellant has raised an issue with regard to interpretation of the Circular dated 16.07.2019, as per the observations made in paragraph ‘17’ of the judgment impugned. For ready reference, the aforesaid paragraph ‘17’ is quoted herein-under: “17. Reading the circular dated 16.7.2019, it is very clear that Clause 1 of the circular when read indicates that those who had worked for more than four years were being paid Rs.220/- and those who were working for less than four hours, were being paid Rs.110/-. The Circular, therefore, cannot be read in a restricted manner to suggest that it cannot be made applicable to those who were appointed for less than four hours. That submission would even be against the policy of giving a minimum wage to the workmen.” 4. Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General would submit that the challenge to the decision of the learned Single Judge is confined to the observation made in paragraph ‘17’ extracted above, wherein Clause 1 of the Circular has been read in a manner that all part-timers, even those who were/are working for less than four hours, have to be provided minimum wages as admissible to a part-timer working for more than four hours. The submission is that the interpretation given by the learned Single Judge to the Circular dated 16.07.2019 that it covers both categories, i.e. those working for four hours and those working for less than four hours and that there was no distinction between the two categories as the circular is applicable to all part-timers, is contrary to the record. 5. The Circular dated 16.07.2019 has been placed before us to submit that the said circular was issued by the State Government in order to implement the judgment and order dated 09.05.2019 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1155 of 2019, arising out of Special Civil Application No. 7462 of 2012. 6. It was argued that the previous circular of the concerned Finance Department dated 06.09.2014 provided two categories of part-time employees. For the first category of the part-time employees working for more than four hours, it was decided that they will be paid Rs.220/- per day, whereas those working upto four hours, Rs.110/- per day was the wages fixed, apart from Special Allowances as may be determined on the said wages/remuneration. In Special Civil Application No. 7462 of 2012 tagged along with other 65 Special Civil Applications, vide judgment and order dated 21.12.2018, a single Bench of this Court had directed that the part-timers therein were to be paid minimum of the pay-scale from 01.01.2019, payable to Class-IV employees of the State Government and if any part-time employees have been relieved from duty in terms of the Finance Department’s Resolution dated 25.04.2012, they shall be reinstated and be paid salary from 01.01.2019, provided they have not attained the age of superannuation. The said decision was challenged in an appeal filed by the State namely Letters Patent Appeal No. 1155 of 2019. Vide judgment and order dated 09.05.2019, the Appellate Court had affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge with the observations in paragraph ‘10’ noted herein-under: “10. The said decision was challenged in an appeal filed by the State namely Letters Patent Appeal No. 1155 of 2019. Vide judgment and order dated 09.05.2019, the Appellate Court had affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge with the observations in paragraph ‘10’ noted herein-under: “10. The above tabular of service details of service of each of the workmen remained undisputed by respondents, the appellant- State herein and the record further reveal that each of the employees had undergone valid selection procedure undertaken by selection committee upon holding interview and the name of individual was called from employment exchange for the post of Class- IV in the fixed pay-scale of Rs.1350/- that service rendered by the employees are not less than 10 to 11 years and extending upto 15 to 16 years continuously and incorporation of condition No. 2 in the appointment letter issued to each of the petitioners of disentailing employee of not claiming any future benefits in the form of permanency or regularization or parity in pay-scale with regular employees is nothing but a contract between lion and land and as addressed by Division Bench of this Court in the Writ Petition (PIL) No. 244 of 2014 in the case of Gujarat Rajya Anshkalin Karmachari Mandal vs. State of Gujarat and Others that their voice of part timers and casual labourers is too feeble and their future is also too un-certain for want of any protection of Article 311 of Constitution of India and long service tenure as semiskilled or un-skilled workers or employees either as sweepers/cleaners/water servers/ gardener/ watchman etc. and appointment is mostly contingency based and work charged with little permanency attached result into social exploitation and when such oral order dated 21.8.2014 was rendered statistics reveal that more than 10,000 to 15000 such workers were deprived of even minimum of pay-scale after long years of more than 15 years of service. and appointment is mostly contingency based and work charged with little permanency attached result into social exploitation and when such oral order dated 21.8.2014 was rendered statistics reveal that more than 10,000 to 15000 such workers were deprived of even minimum of pay-scale after long years of more than 15 years of service. In Para 8 of the above decision the State of Gujarat especially Finance Department was directed that all part-time workers were to be considered and paid at the same rate of remuneration prescribed per day for the employment of sweeping and cleaning work under the said notification dated 5.8.2013 and wages are to be revised accordingly and further order was passed that the State Government shall present affidavit suggesting periodic revisions that may be adopted for remuneration of such persons from time to time after 1998.” 7. It was held therein that the duties discharged by the employees/original writ petitioners therein was akin to temporary and ad-hoc employees though the nomenclature was of part-time employees and there was no complaint against them for years together. The limited relief granted by the learned Single Judge of minimum of pay-scale, i.e. minimum wages in the lowest pay grade available to the regular employees on the same post, without benefit of permanency or regularization, was not to be interfered with. 8. It is argued by the learned Advocate General that in light of the above observations and directions contained in the judgment and order dated 09.05.2019, the State had decided to issue Circular dated 16.07.2019 for effective compliance of the decision of this Court. The instructions contained in the said circular in paragraphs ‘1 to 7’ have been placed before us to demonstrate that the said Circular is confined to those part-time employees who have rendered long service of more than 15 years, that too for a period of 6 hours or more than that. The table extracted in paragraph ‘9’ of the said decision has been placed before us to assert that taking note of the individual service records of each of the petitioners therein extracted in tabular form, the directions for payment of minimum pay-scale to the part-timers issued by the learned Single Judge was affirmed. 9. The table extracted in paragraph ‘9’ of the said decision has been placed before us to assert that taking note of the individual service records of each of the petitioners therein extracted in tabular form, the directions for payment of minimum pay-scale to the part-timers issued by the learned Single Judge was affirmed. 9. The submission is that from the table extracted in paragraph ‘9’ of the judgment and order dated 09.05.2019 and the subsequent observations in paragraph ‘10’ noted above, it can be discerned that the Appellate Court taking note of the factual position of the said case, has reached at the conclusion noted hereinabove. The fact that the Circular dated 16.07.2019 was issued to increase remuneration paid to the part-time employees working in State Government offices, in compliance of judgment and order dated 09.05.2019, has been overlooked by the learned Single Judge while reading Clause 1 of the said circular to hold that there was no dichotomy between two categories of part-time employees, those who were working for more than four hours and those who were working for less than four hours. 10. The decision of this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 244 of 2014 in Gujarat Rajya Anshkalin Karmachari Mandal vs. State of Gujarat and 10 others, wherein this controversy was originally addressed, has been placed before us to demonstrate that the Division Bench in the said matter has noted the distinction between two categories of employees working on part-time basis as indicated in Explanation-II to the Notification dated 05.08.2013 prescribing rates of wages. The directions issued in the order dated 21.08.2014 in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 244 of 2014 has been placed before us, which reads as under: “8. Under the circumstances, following directions are issued: (1) The State Government shall pay to all its part time workers at the same rate of remuneration prescribed per day for the employment of sweeping and cleaning work under the said notification dated 5.8.2013 along with daily special allowance as payable subject to modification permissible under explanation (2) noted above with effect from 1.8.2014. In other words, for the salaries to be paid to all such workers across the State at the end of month of August 2014, such revised rates will be applied. (2) The Secretary to the Finance Department shall issue necessary circular to all the wings of the Government to implement such directions forthwith. In other words, for the salaries to be paid to all such workers across the State at the end of month of August 2014, such revised rates will be applied. (2) The Secretary to the Finance Department shall issue necessary circular to all the wings of the Government to implement such directions forthwith. (3) There shall be no change in the duty hours of any of these workers as long as such workers are in Government employment. The State Government shall present affidavit suggesting periodic revisions that may be adopted for remuneration of such persons from time to time after 1998.” 11. It was submitted that the Circular dated 06.09.2014 was an outcome of the above noted directions. The copy of the Circular dated 06.09.2014 has been placed before us wherein it was noted that the part-time employees had continued in service in view of the various directions issued by this Court from time to time. In Writ Petition (PIL) No. 244 of 2014, the Gujarat Part Time Employees Union sought increase in the rates of remuneration being paid to the part-time employees who were serving in different offices of State Government. Vide interim orders dated 21.08.2014 and 04.09.2014, this Court had directed the State Government to increase the remuneration of the part-time employees with effect from 01.08.2014 and make payment of the revised remuneration by 15.09.2014. The instructions vide the Circular dated 06.09.2014 for revision of the remuneration to part-time employees serving in different offices of the State had, thus, been issued. The Circular dated 16.07.2019 records the said fact. 12. Another Circular dated 21.10.2014 has been issued as a clarification to the Circular dated 06.09.2014 providing therein that apart from the remuneration, Special Allowances announced from time to time by the Labour and Employment Department, shall be admissible to the part-time employees. Another Circular was issued on 01.01.2016 by the Finance Department, Government of Gujarat, issuing instructions to various departments to ensure compliance of the Circulars dated 06.09.2014 and 21.10.2014, to pay remuneration at the rate of Rs.220/- per day in case of those who were engaged for more than four hours and Rs.110/- per day in the case of those who were engaged for work upto four hours, apart from the Special Allowance announced by the Labour and Employment Department, from time to time. It was directed that in case the payment as per the rate of Special Allowance announced by the notification issued by the Labour Department had not been paid, they should immediately pay the arrears of the same. Instructions were issued to take care to ensure that the benefits of the applicable rate fixed by the office of the Labour Commission for sweeping and cleaning work, the rate of minimum wage and the rate of Special Allowance whenever revised, is invariably given to the part-time employees. 13. Placing all these circulars and the decisions of this Court, it was argued that there was no occasion for any doubt or confusion with regard to the contents of the Circular dated 16.07.2019, which was confined to implementation of the judgment and order dated 09.05.2019 of the Appellate Court, i.e. it was issued with respect to those part-time employees who were working for six hours or more. There was, thus, no occasion for the learned Single Judge to hold that the Circular applies to even those part-time employees who were working for less than four hours or upto four hours. 14. It was urged by the learned Advocate General that this dichotomy clearly provided in all the previous circulars of the Finance Department, Government of Gujarat, cannot be said to have been eclipsed with the issuance of the Circular dated 16.07.2019, which was confined to the implementation of the judgment and order dated 09.05.2019 of this Court. It was argued that the Circular dated 16.07.2019 is to be read and interpreted in a purposive manner, as sought to be contemplated and understood by its author, i.e. the State Government. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, Government of India vs. Cipla Ltd. and Others, (2003) 7 SCC 1 , to argue that the contents of a policy document cannot be read and interpreted as statutory provisions. It was observed by the Apex Court in the said case that too much of legalism cannot be imported in understanding the scope and meaning of the clauses contained in policy formulations. Reference has been made to the decision in the case of P.H. Paul Manoj Pandian vs. P. Veldurai, (2011) 5 SCC 214 , to place the observations therein in paragraph ‘28’ as under: “28. Reference has been made to the decision in the case of P.H. Paul Manoj Pandian vs. P. Veldurai, (2011) 5 SCC 214 , to place the observations therein in paragraph ‘28’ as under: “28. One of the accepted principles of interpretation is as to how those, who are conversant with the Government Order and are expected to deal with the same, construe and understand the Order. The opinion expressed by the Government officials, who are expected to have sufficient knowledge and experience as to how a Government Order should be operated and/or implemented, may be relied upon. In order to ascertain this, it would be necessary to refer to the evidence on record. Though the High Court has concluded that the Chief Engineer had no power to terminate contracts in terms of Government Order dated November 16, 1951, this Court finds that the High Court has not adverted to the evidence on record at all.” 15. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and Others vs. Vijay Vasantrao Deshpande, (1998) 7 SCC 81 , has been placed before us to submit that in the similar situation, as is before us in the present matter, the Apex Court has observed that intention of the Government of India in the scheme framed by it in the policy document dated 05.03.1985 could not be read in the manner as read by the High Court. With these submissions, it was urged that the judgment impugned is required to be interfered with. 16. Shri Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Vidhi Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the respondents-original workmen, in rebuttal, argued that all the writ petitioners-respondents herein are entitled for the benefit of the Circular dated 16.07.2019, inasmuch as, they are working in various departments of the State, for six hours or more than that in a day. Attention of the Court is invited to paragraph ‘4’ of the Special Civil Application No. 88 of 2021 filed by two persons named as Haresh Arjanbhai Parmar and Hansaben Haresh Parmar, seeking relief in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to extend the benefits of the pay-scale of the post against those petitioners have been appointed, as per the Finance Department Circular dated 16.07.2019. Paragraph ‘4’ of the said writ petition reads as under: “4. Paragraph ‘4’ of the said writ petition reads as under: “4. The petitioners state that they were appointed to work for less than 5 hours a day, but in reality, they have been working for more than 6 hours a day. Thus, though the petitioners are called parttimers, in actual fact, they have been rendering service full time on fixed pay without any allowance or any other benefits that are given to the regular employees in the District Assistant Examiner’s office.” 17. The submission is that similar averments have been made in all the writ petitions in this bunch. In some of the writ petitions though counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State respondents, but there was no challenge to the categorical statement with regard to the working hours, made by the writ petitioners. Either no counter affidavit has been filed refuting the averments in the writ petition or in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, there is no denial to the said averments much less categorical denial. The result is that on the factual aspects all the writ petitioners have demonstrated before the writ Court that they were working in various departments of the State such as Panchayat, Rural Housing and Development Department, Health and Family Welfare Department, as Safai Karmi, Ward Boy, Watchman, Ward Aayas, Helpers, etc. for more than six hours a day, though they were termed as part-timers engaged for less than five hours or so in their appointment letters. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents-writ petitioners, thus, is that working hours mentioned in the appointment letter of the writ petitioners is only a camouflage and they are actually rendering services for six hours or more in a day. The writ petitioners, therefore, are entitled to the benefits of the Circular dated 16.07.2019 which has been issued to increase remuneration of part-time employees working in the State Government offices. 18. On the interpretation given by the learned Single Judge to the Circular dated 16.07.2019, it was argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents that there was no classification in the said circular between different categories of part-timers. 18. On the interpretation given by the learned Single Judge to the Circular dated 16.07.2019, it was argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents that there was no classification in the said circular between different categories of part-timers. It was a policy in general which provided for increase in the remuneration of parttime employees working in the State Government offices, issued under the Resolution of the Finance Department, wherein instructions were issued that all such part-timers who were working in the office of Administrative Heads or the department/office of the State Government as on 01.01.2019, were entitled for the fixed monthly salary of Rs.14,800/- considering the minimum wages payable to Class-IV employees. As these instructions also cover those who were not party to the writ Court, in view of Clause-3 of the Circular itself, the writ petitioners-respondents herein are entitled to the benefits thereof. 19. It was urged that all the writ petitioners-respondents herein are working for more than 15/20/25 years. At the interim stage, this Court had directed the respondents to take a decision on the claim of the writ petitioners and bring their decision before the Court. The claims of the writ petitioners have been rejected on the basis of statement made in their appointment letters with regard to their working hours. The claim of the petitioners that they were working for more than six hours or more than that, beyond the working hours mentioned in their appointment letter, has not been dealt with. The draft amendments were filed in the writ petitions to challenge the orders of rejection of claim of the writ petitioners. Neither any counter affidavit had been filed in the writ petition initially nor even after the amendment. The contention of the writ petitioners with regard to the working hours, thus, remained uncontroverted. 20. The submission is that the list of 65 petitioners extracted in the decision of the Division Bench dated 09.05.2019 was only illustrative and the bench had not restricted the decision to the parttime employees working for more than six hours or less than 6 hours. No such classification can be found in the Circular dated 16.07.2019. The reading of the entire resolution/circular would indicate that there was no dichotomy. The Court is not competent to make any classification and, in case of any doubt, benefit has to be given to the petitioners. No such classification can be found in the Circular dated 16.07.2019. The reading of the entire resolution/circular would indicate that there was no dichotomy. The Court is not competent to make any classification and, in case of any doubt, benefit has to be given to the petitioners. The Court has to lean in favour of the writ petitioners. Even in case of vagueness, the writ petitioners cannot be excluded. It was argued that the State had a chance to bring the correct facts before the writ Court. Replies were not filed. The nature of work and working hours of the petitioners was not disputed. The ground reality is that all the writ petitioners have been rendering more than four hours of service and in view of the nature of work and duties being imparted by them of Safai Karmi, Ward Boy, Watchman etc., it can neither be expected nor can be assumed that the writ petitioners are such part-time employees who were working for less than four hours. The clarification which is sought to be placed by the learned Advocate General, is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 21. In rejoinder, it is submitted by the learned Advocate General that the State has no objection to accord benefits to such part-timers who are covered by the Circular dated 16.07.2019 and the decision of this Court in the judgment and order dated 09.05.2019. The State is only apprehensive of the implication of the observations made in paragraph ‘17’ of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, wherein on reading of Clause-1 of the Circular, it has been held that it cannot be applied in a restricted manner, i.e. it has to be extended to those part-time employees who were/are working for less than four hours. The submission is that there is no justification of giving same remuneration to the part-time employees working for six hours or more than that, i.e. rendering the same service as that of a regular employee and those who are working for one or two hours in a day, rendering service of less than four hours. 22. The submission is that there is no justification of giving same remuneration to the part-time employees working for six hours or more than that, i.e. rendering the same service as that of a regular employee and those who are working for one or two hours in a day, rendering service of less than four hours. 22. Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the appellants in connected matters, adopted the legal arguments raised by Mr.Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General, appearing for the State appellant, but on factual aspect of the matter, he also could not assail the contention of the writ petitioners that they have worked for more than six hours or more than that in a day. 23. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records, as noted above, the dispute in the instant case is with regard to those writ petitioners-respondents herein who claimed that they are working for six hours or more, though they were appointed to work for less than four hours a day. The categorical statement of the writ petitioners, as noted above, that they are called part-timers, but in actual sense they have been rendering services full time, as that of a regular employee in the various departments of the State could not be refuted. The writ petitioners-respondents in this bunch are working on various posts such as Sweeper, Water-bearer, Ward Boy, Safai Kamdar, Watchman, Sevak, Ward Aaya, Helper, Driver etc. in various departments of the State such as Panchayat, Rural Housing and Development Department, Health and Family Welfare Department, etc. From the nature of services rendered by the writ petitioners and the categorical statement made by them that they are working for six hours or more than that, in absence of any denial on the part of the State respondents to the contention of the petitioners, we cannot take exception to the stand of the writ petitioners that they are entitled for the benefit of the Circular dated 16.07.2019. It may be noted that the writ petitioners-respondents herein had continued to work for long, in some cases for 15 years or more than that in various departments of the State. Continuation of employees who are rendering essential services of Sweeper, Ward Boy, etc. terming as part-timers, cannot but be termed as unfair labour practice as observed by the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned. Continuation of employees who are rendering essential services of Sweeper, Ward Boy, etc. terming as part-timers, cannot but be termed as unfair labour practice as observed by the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned. No exception can be taken to the findings returned by the learned Single Judge. The continuation of the appointees on these posts for long, itself would indicate that their services are indispensable, as their work is of perennial nature. The finding returned by the learned Single Judge that it does not lie in the mouth of the State to deny the benefits of the Circular dated 16.07.2019 to Panchayat employees on the ground that the resolution does not apply to them, cannot be interfered with. The conclusion arrived therein that the resolution would apply to such Panchayat employees, who are sought to be excluded on the premise that they have been working for less than four hours or not working on a sanctioned post in Panchayat is against the stand of the State, setting at naught the very purpose for which the Circular was brought forth, cannot be interfered with, for the fact that the writ petitioners-respondents herein have successfully demonstrated before the writ Court, as also before us that they were working for full time in a day, i.e. for a period of six hours or more than that. The conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge that an employee engaged in the same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duty and responsibility and such an act is demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity, is in conformity with the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others, (2017) 1 SCC 148 . To the above extent, the finding returned by the learned Single Judge could not be successfully assailed by the State appellant, appearing through the learned Advocate General. 24. Only question remains is with regard to the interpretation of the Circular dated 16.07.2019, as has been made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph ’17’ of the judgment impugned, extracted above. To the above extent, the finding returned by the learned Single Judge could not be successfully assailed by the State appellant, appearing through the learned Advocate General. 24. Only question remains is with regard to the interpretation of the Circular dated 16.07.2019, as has been made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph ’17’ of the judgment impugned, extracted above. A careful reading of paragraph ‘17’ of the judgment impugned indicates that the learned Single Judge while reading Clause-1 of the Circular dated 16.07.2019 has reached at the conclusion that the said clause cannot be read in a restricted manner so as to suggest that it cannot be made applicable to those who were appointed for less than four hours. We may note that at the first blush, on reading of the Circular dated 16.07.2019, we found ourselves convinced with the opinion drawn by the learned Single Judge, however, having carefully gone through the decisions of this Court noted above and the circulars of the State issued at earlier point of time, we arrived at a different conclusion, for the reasons given herein-below. 25. The first principle for interpretation or reading of a Government policy or circular is that it should be read in whole and not in piecemeal so as to gather the intention of the authority-State herein, which has issued it. It is settled that interpretation of a policy document cannot be made as that of a statutory provision. As far as possible, a policy document has to be read in whole to understand the scope and meaning of the clauses contained in it. The interpretation if required, has to be purposive, in a manner that it gives effect to the policy guidelines formulated therein and not to frustrate it. 26. The second accepted principle of interpretation of a policy document is as to how those, who are conversant with the circular and are expected to deal with the same, construe and understand the order. The opinion expressed by the Government officials, who are expected to have sufficient knowledge and experience as to how a circular should be operated and/or implemented, may be relied upon. In order to ascertain the intention of the author of the policy document, it is necessary to refer to the related documents, reference of which is found therein and to read its contents as a whole. 27. In order to ascertain the intention of the author of the policy document, it is necessary to refer to the related documents, reference of which is found therein and to read its contents as a whole. 27. Reading the circular dated 16.07.2019, in light of the above principles, we may extract the circular as a whole for ready reference: “To increase the remuneration of part-time employees working in State Government Offices Gujarat Government Finance Department Circular No. PRCH-102019-0-215-CH Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar. Dated: 16.07.2019 Read: 1. Finance Department Resolution No. ECR-1098-740- Ch of 23/9/1998. 2. Finance Department Resolution No. ECR-1094-425- Ch of 10/2/2006. 3. Finance Department Resolution No. ECR-102006- 604-Ch of 15/7/2006. 4. Finance Department Resolution No. ECR-1094-425- Ch of 1/5/2007. 5. Finance Department Resolution No. ECR-102006- 604-Ch of 25/4/2012. 6. Finance Department Resolution No. PCR-102015-8-Ch of 6/9/14. 7. Finance Department Resolution No. PCR-02015-8- Ch of 1/1/2016. 8. LPA No. 1155/2019 in S.C.A. No. 7463/2012 filed in Hon’ble High Court and Other 65 SCAs. CIRCULAR Pursuant to the instructions issued under the above-read resolutions/circulars of Finance Department, in the offices of the Administrative Heads of the Departments/ Offices of the State Government and the offices thereunder, wages/remuneration amended from time to time as per the judgments rendered in court cases, were being paid to the part-time employees working therein. As per the judgment rendered in PIL No. 244/2014, with reference to the above read item no. (6), it was decided to pay Rs.220/- per day to the part-time employees working for more than four hours and Rs.110/- per day to the part-time employees who are working upto four hours. As per the above-referred subject item no. (7), an amount of Special Allowance as may be decided from time to time, was also paid, on the said wages/remuneration. Under the above subject-item No. (5), the parttime employees who were to be relieved from service, filed various cases in the High Court, i.e. SCA No. 7462/2012 and along with other 65 SCAs, wherein the Hon’ble Mr.Justice Mohinder Pal has given the CAV judgment on 21/12/2018 under which, these part-time employees are to be paid minimum of the pay scale from 1/1/2019 payable to Class-4 employees of the State Government and as per subject item no. (5), according to the Finance Department’s Resolution dated 25/4/2012, if any part-time employees are relieved from duty, then in that case, they should be re-instated and should also ordered to be paid salary from 1/1/2019, if they have not reached the age of superannuation. The aforesaid CAV judgment was challenged by State Government by way of LPA No. 1155/2019 in SCA No. 7462/2012 in which, the Hon’ble High Court has, vide its order dated 9/5/2019, confirmed the judgment rendered in SCA No. 7462/2012. State Government has decided to accept the above order of the Hon’ble High Court and for effecting compliance thereof, the following instructions are circulated: 1. Such part-time employees who are working in the offices of the Administrative Heads of the Departments/Offices of the State Government, as on 1/1/2019 and thereafter, are to be paid fixed monthly salary of Rs.14,800/- effective from 1/1/2019, considering the minimum wages payable to Class-4 employees. 2. The aforesaid amount of Rs.14,800/- will be considered as fixed pay and no other dearness allowance or any other allowances will be paid. 3. Petitioners connected with the case referred to in subject item no. (8), will be given this benefit. Besides this, all those part-time employees of this type, whose services are under Secretariat Department/Heads of Departments/Offices, will be entitled to get the above mentioned benefit after the requisite office-inspection and in consultation with the Finance Department for taking immediate action for compliance. 4. As per the instructions contained in the Government Resolution of 25/4/2012 of Finance Department, if any part-time employee is relieved from service and has not crossed the retirement age, then they are to be reinstated back in service and they too will be given benefit of fixed pay from 1/1/2019. 5. As per the above referred judgment dated 21/12/2018 rendered in the LPA 1155/2019 of the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice Anant S. Dave and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Biren Vaishnav, the appeals of the State Government filed against the CAV judgment dated 9/5/2019 of the learned Single Judge in SCA No. 7402/2012 and other were dismissed. In view of this, as per the order dated 8/7/2019 of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, in Contempt R/Misc. Civil Application Nos. 206/2019 to 324/2019, the original judgment dated 21/12/2018 is to be complied with by 22/7/2019. 6. In view of this, as per the order dated 8/7/2019 of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, in Contempt R/Misc. Civil Application Nos. 206/2019 to 324/2019, the original judgment dated 21/12/2018 is to be complied with by 22/7/2019. 6. As per the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Court, if the differential amount is not paid by the said date, then in that case, 6% interest is to be paid on the said differential amount. In view of this, if any Department/Departmental Head/ Office has not paid the said amount in time, then the responsibility for the penalty of interest will be on the concerned officer. 7. Instructions are issued to the Head of the concerned Department/Section/Office to see that the fixed pay is paid regularly in this fashion every month. By name and order of Hon’ble Governor of Gujarat. Sd/- (Shailesh V. Parmar) Deputy Secretary Finance Department.” 28. The opening paragraph of the circular refers to the previous circulars/resolutions of Finance Department which include the Circular dated 06.09.2014 at Item No. 6. As noted above, the Circular dated 06.09.2014 was issued in compliance of the order dated 21.08.2014 passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 244 of 2014, where the Division Bench of this Court directed the State Government to pay all its part-time workers at the same rate of remuneration prescribed per day in the employment of sweeping and cleaning work under the Notification dated 05.08.2013 issued by the Labour and Employment Department under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Circular dated 05.08.2013 provides different remunerations for two categories of employees working on part-time basis, those who work upto four hours and those who work for more than four hours. The Circular/Resolution dated 06.09.2014, which was issued for payment of remuneration to part-time employees serving in offices of State Government in view of the order passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 244 of 2014 also contained the dichotomy as extracted in the second paragraph of the Circular dated 16.07.2019, reproduced hereinabove. 29. The third paragraph of the Circular dated 16.07.2019 refers to Finance Department’s Resolution dated 01.01.2016 for payment of Special Allowance to the part-timers on the wages/remuneration fixed in the Circular dated 06.09.2014, as has been noted in the preceding paragraph of this judgment. 29. The third paragraph of the Circular dated 16.07.2019 refers to Finance Department’s Resolution dated 01.01.2016 for payment of Special Allowance to the part-timers on the wages/remuneration fixed in the Circular dated 06.09.2014, as has been noted in the preceding paragraph of this judgment. In fourth and fifth paragraph of the circular, there is a reference of the decisions of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 7462 of 2012 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 1155 of 2019. Clauses 1 to 7 contain all the instructions of the Circular/Resolution dated 16.07.2019 which are to be read in the above context. Reading of Clause 1 in isolation, ignoring the preceding paragraphs of the Circular dated 16.07.2019, seems to be an erroneous exercise on the part of the learned Single Judge. The conclusion in paragraph ‘17’ of the judgment impugned that the Circular cannot be read in a restricted manner in view of the language in Clause 1 thereof, is found to be a result of misreading of the same. 30. Moreover, at the one stage of the argument, Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents-original writ petitioners, submits that the question of interpretation of the Circular dated 16.07.2019 in the manner as has been made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph ‘17’ of the judgment impugned, would not be required in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, inasmuch as, the writ petitioners-respondents herein have successfully demonstrated by making statement on oath that they have worked for more than four hours, i.e. for six hours or more than that on each day, doing such work which are perennial in nature. The submission is that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, without delving into the question of interpretation of the Circular dated 16.07.2019, the matter can be decided so as to affirm the decision of the learned Single Judge to grant benefit of the Circular dated 16.07.2019. It is submitted that in an appropriate case, the interpretation of Circular dated 16.07.2019 may be left open for examination. 31. The learned Advocate General, however, argued that such an interpretation would be contrary to the settled legal position with regard to the principles of ‘equal pay for equal work’. It is submitted that in an appropriate case, the interpretation of Circular dated 16.07.2019 may be left open for examination. 31. The learned Advocate General, however, argued that such an interpretation would be contrary to the settled legal position with regard to the principles of ‘equal pay for equal work’. It was vehemently contended that by no stretch of imagination, a parttime employee who is working for only one hour or two hours a day can be equated with those working for more than four hours, i.e. six hours or more than that. In any case, work and responsibility of a parttime employee who is engaged and worked for one hour in a day cannot be equated with those who worked for more than four hours. 32. In light of the above discussion, we reached at an irresistible conclusion that the opinion drawn by the learned Single Judge in paragraph ‘17’ of the judgment impugned, giving interpretation to Clause-1 of the Circular dated 16.07.2019 to grant benefit of regular pay to the part-time employees working for less than four hours, is based on wrong assumptions. However, in view of the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners in light of the facts of the instant case, as the writ petitioners-respondents herein are covered by the Circular dated 16.07.2019 as they have demonstrated to have been working for six hours or more in a day in different departments of the State Government, we hold that the interpretation of the Circular dated 16.07.2019 in respect to those part-time employees who were/are working for less than four hours in a day, would not arise, in the instant case. 33. For the above, the judgment and order dated 19.07.2022 of the learned Single Judge, in the case of the writ petitioners-respondents herein, is modified with the observation that the issue with regard to the applicability of the Circular/Government Resolution dated 16.07.2019 with regard to the part-time employees working for less than four hours, is left open for examination by this Court in an appropriate case. The observations made by us hereinabove on the opinion drawn by the learned Single Judge in paragraph ‘17’ of the judgment impugned that the circular cannot be restricted to one category of part-time employees, shall not be treated as a binding precedent, inasmuch as, the issue of interpretation of the contents of the Circular dated 16.07.2019, has not arisen in the instant case, in principle. It is further clarified that the observations made hereinabove with regard to the interpretation of the Circular dated 16.07.2019 was only an effort to arrive at a just decision in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 34. In view of the above, while modifying the judgment and order dated 19.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 6852 of 2020 and allied matters, to the above extent, with respect to the respondents herein-writ petitioners, these bunch of appeals are disposed of. In view of the disposal of the main appeals, the connected Civil Applications also stand disposed of. FURTHER ORDER After the judgment was pronounced, on the submission of the learned Advocate General, we grant four months’ time to the appellants to comply with the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 19.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge.