Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1032 (GUJ)

Ajitbhai Dayabhai Rathod v. State Of Gujarat

2024-04-26

HEMANT M.PRACHCHHAK

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. By way of present petitions, under Articles 14, 16, 21, 23 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged impugned orders passed by the respondent Deputy Conservator of Forests, Surendranagar. 2. Since identical issue is involved in all the three petitions, they are taken up for final disposal today with consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, by way of this common judgment. 3. As the common issue is involved in all the three petitions, Special Civil Application No.15265 of 2015 is treated as lead matter and in the said petition, the petitioner has prayed for below mentioned reliefs:- “25.(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the impugned letter dated 19.2.2015 from the respondent Deputy Conservator of Forests, Surendranagar denying the petitioner the benefits as contained in Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 9.7.2013 as arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, bad in law and thus violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India and quashing and setting aside the same; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to extend the benefits as contained in Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner from the date he became eligible for such benefits with all the consequential benefits, including arrears of pay and allowances; (C) Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to process the case of the petitioner for grant of the benefits as contained in Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988; (D) Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from taking any coercive action against or terminating the services of the petitioner otherwise than in accordance with law; and (E) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass any other and/or further order, as deemed fit, in the interest of justice.” 4. The brief facts giving rise to present petitions are that the petitioners were working as daily-wage worker under Range Forest Officer, Multi under Surendranagar Forest Division. The brief facts giving rise to present petitions are that the petitioners were working as daily-wage worker under Range Forest Officer, Multi under Surendranagar Forest Division. 4.1 The daily-wagers in the Forests and Environment Department have been paid wages either on the basis of the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1984 or on piece rate basis, without any other allowances. For the daily-wagers of the Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpasar Department and of the Roads and Buildings Department, who are otherwise equal to the daily-wagers in the Forests and Environment Department in all respects, there is a scheme in place for according quasi permanent status to them. The scheme was launched by Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 issued by the Roads & Buildings Department. Though the Forests and Environment Department finds mention in the preamble of the said Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, it is not made applicable to the daily-wagers of the Forests and Environment Department. Thus, the said Government Resolution is selectively applied to the daily-wagers of the Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpasar Department and of the Roads and Buildings Department. The daily-wagers in the Forests and Environment Department have been fighting, through their Unions, for justice by way of filing writ petitions before this Hon'ble Court. Finally, the matter reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by way of Special Leave Petitions (C) No. 13619-13520 of 2012 preferred by the State of Gujarat against the oral judgment and order dated 28.2.2012 passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal no. 1754 of 2011 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 88 of 2012. 4.2 After hearing the parties in Civil Appeal Nos. 5321- 5322 of 2013 arising out of the aforesaid Special Leave Petitions (C) no. 13619-13620 of 2012, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, vide its judgment dated 09.07.2013 (reported in 2013 (8) Scale 579 ) directed the State (appellant therein) to grant the benefits of the scheme as contained in Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to all the daily-wage workers of the Forests and Environment Department working for more than five years. 4.3 In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Special Civil Application no. 4.3 In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Special Civil Application no. 13240 of 2012 in which the petitioner herein was one of the petitioners and other connected matters came to be disposed of by this Court by its common oral judgment dated 16.4.2014 and partly allowed the petition and directed the respondents to examine and decide the cases of all the petitioners individually as per the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 26 of its decision in the case of PWD Employees' Union & Ors., reported in (2013) 12 SCC 417 . Thus, the petitioners of present petitions have become entitled to get the benefits as stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PWD Employees' Union matter (supra). 4.4 Pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Government of Gujarat in Forests and Environment Department issued Government Resolution dated 15.9.2014 extending the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the daily-wagers working in the Forests and Environment Department. 4.5 In pursuance of the common oral judgment dated 16.4.2014 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application no. 13240 of 2012 and other connected matters, by its letter dated 19.2.2015, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Surendranagar informed the petitioner that since he is not qualified in terms of Government Resolution dated 15.9.2014, the petitioner is not eligible for the benefits as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its decision dated 9.7.2013. 4.6 Hence, by way of these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are similarly situated persons have challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid letter dated 15.9.2014. 5. Heard Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Aditi Raol, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jay Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents authorities. 5.1 Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted the issue with regard to oral termination involved in present petition is already covered by the judgment of this Court in Special Civil Application No.17721 of 2015 and allied matters. So far as the issue of granting benefits to the petitioners is concerned, Mr. 5.1 Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted the issue with regard to oral termination involved in present petition is already covered by the judgment of this Court in Special Civil Application No.17721 of 2015 and allied matters. So far as the issue of granting benefits to the petitioners is concerned, Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon decision dated 22.1.2020 of this Court in Special Civil Application No.3966 of 2016 which is subsequently confirmed by the division bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 83 of 2021 vide order dated 13.1.2021 and further confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 4.2.2022 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.12097 of 2021. 5.2 Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the observations made in aforesaid decisions, present petitions may be allowed and the prayers made in present petitions may be granted. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Jay Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents authorities has objected present petition. He has relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.4, more particularly paragraph No.12 of the affidavit-in-reply which reads as under:- “12. I say that, it is undisputed fact that, the petitioner has been working as piece rate worker since 2002 to till date no dispute or issues has been raised by the petitioner therefore, now claiming such benefits would ultimately amount to frustrate the whole purpose and object of employing him at piece rate.” 7. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed affidavit-in- rejoinder whereby the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Executive Engineer (O and M) and another vs. Hareshbhai Dhorabhai Vala reported in 2016 (2) GLR 1064 . 8. Mr.Jay Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader has fairly conceded that in view of the decision dated 22.1.2020 of this Court passed in Special Civil Application No.3966 of 2016 which is subsequently confirmed by the division bench of this Court vide order dated 13.1.2021 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.83 of 2021 and further confirmed by Hon’ble Apex Court on 4.2.2022 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.12097 of 2021 he is enable to controvert the position and defend the case of the respondents authorities. 9. 9. So far as oral termination is concerned, in view of the judgment of this in Special Civil Application No.7638 of 2016 dated 18.4.2024 more particularly paragraph nos. 8 and 9, leaned Assistant Government Pleader is not in a position to controvert the issue of oral termination as well. Further, he requests this Court that since the terminations of the petitioners are set aside by this Court, he is not in a position to controvert the said issue however, so far as the issue of granting benefits of Government Circular dated 17.10.1988 is concerned, the petitioners may make appropriate representations to the respondents-authorities. 10. In view of the above, Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in similar situation, this Court has considered prayer made in the petition being Special Civil Application No.3966 of 2016 vide order dated 22.1.2020 wherein this Court has observed in paragraph No.9 as under:- “9. Thus, the remuneration of the petitioner as a piece rated worker would fall within the definition of term “wages” as prescribed under of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the ID, Act) and her remuneration as a piece rated worker is covered under the definition of wages as define under Section 2(rr) of the ID Act. The impugned order dated 02.11.2015 is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondent authorities are directed to confer the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner, as per the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of PWD Employees' Union & Ors., reported in (2013) 12 SCC 417 and subsequent judgment in the case of PWD and Forest Union and Ors, reported in 2019 (3) scale 462. Appropriate orders conferring the benefits arising out of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 shall be passed within the period of two months from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court.” 11. In view of the above observations by this Court in paragraph No.9, Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submit that there is no need to make any representation to the respondents authorities for the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 12. I have perused the record of the petitions and relevant materials placed on record. I have also gone through the impugned orders passed by the respondents- authorities and the relevant papers. 13. 12. I have perused the record of the petitions and relevant materials placed on record. I have also gone through the impugned orders passed by the respondents- authorities and the relevant papers. 13. So far as the issue of making representations to the respondents-authorities is concerned, the said issue is already covered by the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.3966 of 2016 vide order dated 22.1.2020. Furthermore, in view of the observations made in paragraph No.9 of the order dated 22.1.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.3966 of 2016, I am of the opinion that there is no need to make any representation with regard to benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the respondents- authorities. 14. As discussed earlier vide order dated 22.1.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.3966 of 2016 benefits arising out of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 were granted to the similarly situated employees which was subsequently confirmed by the division bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 83 of 2021 vide order dated 13.1.2021 and further confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 4.2.2022 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.12097 of 2021. Further, in view of the judgment of this Court in Special Civil Application No.17721 of 2015 and allied matters wherein oral termination is declared as null and void and therefore, same principles requires to be applicable in present case also. 15. In view of the above facts and considering the observations made by this Court in above referred judgments, the respondents-authorities are hereby directed to reinstate all the three petitioners along with continuity of service and recalculate the consequential benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and pay the same to the petitioners, keeping in mind their length of services and last wage which was received on the date of their oral termination, within period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of the of present order. 16. Accordingly present petitions are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in each of the petition to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.