Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1693 (GUJ)

Vaghela Bhalajibhai Kalabhai v. State of Gujarat

2024-08-08

VAIBHAVI D.NANAVATI

body2024
ORDER : Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J. 1. Heard Mr. V.K. Joshi, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Pooja Ashar, the learned AGP appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner herein seeks to challenge the order dated 14.3.2017 wherein it is stated that the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 cannot be extended to the petitioner since the petitioner joined the service in the year 1995 after the date of the G. R. dated 17.10.1988. 3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition read thus :- 3.1 The petitioner joined the services of the respondent at Gandhinagar as daily-wager in January, 1994. The petitioner was thereafter dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised industrial dispute being Reference (LCS) No. I7 of 2000 before the Labour Court, Surendranagar wherein the said Reference came to be allowed by award dated 13-11-2006 directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on his original position but without back wages. 3.2 Aggrieved by the said award passed by the Labour Court, the respondent Government preferred Special Civil Application No. 6827 of 2007 which came to be dismissed by order dated 7.1.2013 confirming the order passed by the Labour Court. The petitioner came to be reinstated in service on 19.07.2013. 3.3 The petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 17515 of 2016 claiming the benefits of schemes of G.R. dated 17.10.1988. The said petition came to be disposed of by order dated 17.10.2016 with a direction to the respondent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for the purpose of granting benefit available under the G. R. dated 17.10.1988 within a period of four months in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Gujarat vs. PWD Employees Union, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 417 . 3.4 The competent authority was directed to complete the aforesaid exercise as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 04 months by order dated 17.10.2016. 3.5 After the said order was passed, the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 14.3.2017 stating that the benefit flowing from the G.R. dated 17.10.1988 cannot extended to to the petitioner since the petitioner joined the services in the year 1995 (Annex.B) page-19. 4. 3.5 After the said order was passed, the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 14.3.2017 stating that the benefit flowing from the G.R. dated 17.10.1988 cannot extended to to the petitioner since the petitioner joined the services in the year 1995 (Annex.B) page-19. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14.3.2017 passed by the respondent authority, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court seeking the following reliefs:- “(A) To admit and allow this petition: (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents forthwith extend the benefits of scheme of G.R. dated l7-10-1988 in the light of the aforesaid judgments of this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court which are at Annexure respectively; (C) To quash and set aside the office order at Annexure-B passed by the respondent no.2 by holding and declaring the same to be unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and not in accordance with the judgments passed by this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Apex court at Annexure-A, C, D and G respectively; (D) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to directing the respondents to forthwith extend the benefits of scheme of G.R. dated 17-10-1988 in the light of the aforesaid judgments of this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court which are at Annexure - A, C, D and G respectively; (E) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 5. Mr. V.K. Joshi, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the it is the second round of litigation wherein the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court instead of direction given in the Special Civil Application No.17515 of 2016 whereby by an order dated 17.10.2016 the respondent authority was directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of the G.R. dated 17.10.1988 in accordance with the ratio laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in PWD Employees Union (Supra). 5.1 Reliance is placed on the order passed in the Letters Patent Appeal No.325 of 2013 CAV Judgment dated 16.7.2014 whereby the Appeal of the State was dismissed and MCA No.3021 of 2015 in the Special Civil Application No.9814 of 2014, in PWD and Forest Employees Union vs. Poonam Chand Parmar, in which the respondent State was directed to extend the benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 as per the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in PWD and Forest Employees Union (Supra). 5.2 It is submitted that the position of law is clear as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the order passed in PWD and Forest Employees Union (Supra) as also order passed, as referred above, that the benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 is required to be extended to the petitioner in light of the fact that the petitioner was reinstated by the Labour Court by award dated 13.11.2006. 5.3 It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988. It is submitted that the petitioner herein falls within the conditions laid down in the said G.R. and the benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 is required to be extended. 6. Ms. Pooja Ashar, the learned AGP appearing for the respondents submitted that no interference is called for in the impugned order passed by the respondent authority whereby the respondent authority has declined to extend the benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988, the petitioner being not eligible for the same. 6.1 It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1995 and is not eligible for the benefit of the benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988. It is submitted that it is not disputed that the petitioner was reinstated in service on 19.7.2013 as a daily-wager on the condition that his appointment was made as a daily-wager in the year 1994 and would not be governed by the aforesaid Government Resolution. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged as daily-wager on purely temporary basis in January, 1994. The petitioner worked from January, 1995 to January, 1996 as daily-wager. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was dismissed from the service in the January 1996 and according to the respondent the petitioner himself stopped discharging duties on his own will from February, 1996. The petitioner worked from January, 1995 to January, 1996 as daily-wager. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was dismissed from the service in the January 1996 and according to the respondent the petitioner himself stopped discharging duties on his own will from February, 1996. The petitioner raised industrial dispute by making Reference (LCS) No. I7 of 2000 before the Labour Court, Surendranagar which came to be partly allowed by Award dated 13.11.2006 directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner on his original position without back-wages. The aforesaid Award dated 13.11.2006, as referred above, was challenged by the respondent State by preferring the Special Civil Application No. 6827 of 2007 which came to be dismissed by order dated 7.1.2013. The concerned Department gave approval to reinstate the petitioner vide letter dated 19.6.2013. The said letter mentioned that the petitioner was employed in the year 1994-95 and would not be eligible for the benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988. 8. The petitioner rejoined the duty from 19.7.2013 as daily-wager and thereafter preferred the Special Civil Application No. 17515 of 2016 claiming the benefits of the G.R. dated 17.10.1988. By order dated 17.10.2016 the respondent State was directed to examine and consider the case of the petitioner for the purpose of grant of benefit available under the G.R. dated 17.10.1988. Keeping in view, the fact and circumstances of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court PWD Employees Union (Supra) within a period of four months. 9. The respondent State vide impugned order dated 14.3.2017 while taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner joined the service after 1988 held that the petitioner is not liable for the benefit flowing from the G.R. dated 17.10.1988. 10. Considering the aforesaid undisputed facts, as referred above, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment dated 31.1.2013 passed in the Special Civil Application No.1563 of 1992 and allied matters. In the said judgment with respect to identically situated employees wherein such employees were denied the benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 on the basis of cut off date of 30.11.1994 was held to be illegal and arbitrary. The present petitioner is identically placed wherein the petitioner herein is denied the benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 on the ground that the petitioner came to be appointed as daily-wager after 1988 i.e. in the year 1994. The present petitioner is identically placed wherein the petitioner herein is denied the benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 on the ground that the petitioner came to be appointed as daily-wager after 1988 i.e. in the year 1994. It is apposite to refer to paragraphs - 10 to 13 of the said judgment which read thus :- “10. Considering the totality of the facts and law as discussed above, I find that the grouping of daily wagers sought to be made by the respondent Board on the basis of the cut off date of 30.11.1994, to deny benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, is illegal and arbitrary and the same is rejected. It is held that even those daily wagers who are appointed after 30.11.1994 shall also be extended the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and thus, they will stand at par with the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.1563 of 1992 and shall also be entitled to the benefits, which are claimed by and are directed to be paid to the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.1563 of 1992. 11. It is indicated by Learned advocates for the respondent Board that, during pendency of these petitions, some of the petitioners, either have abandoned their job and one was terminated for misconduct, by the respondent Board. In this regard therefore it is clarified that, while giving effect to the directions contained in this judgment and order, such persons shall be entitled to benefits only till they were in service and the judgment in this petitions ipso facto would not result in their reinstatement in any manner. 12. For the reasons recorded above, all these petitions are allowed. Respondents are directed to grant benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to these petitioners, as directed and clarified by this Court in the judgment and order dated 18.03.2011 recorded in Letters Patent Appeal No.958 of 2011 and cognate matters. The calculation regarding the benefits flowing from these directions shall be made within a period of four months from today and actual payment thereof shall be made to the petitioners within a period of eight months from today. 13. Though above directions are qua the present petitioners only, it is expected that similarly situated poor persons working with the respondent Board may not be forced into avoidable litigation.” 11. 13. Though above directions are qua the present petitioners only, it is expected that similarly situated poor persons working with the respondent Board may not be forced into avoidable litigation.” 11. In light of the facts of the present case and the position of law, as referred above, though the petitioner came to be appointed in the year 1994, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 and the benefits accruing out of the said G.R. are required to be extended to the petitioner at per with the similarly situated employees and the petitioner herein, in the opinion of this Court be extended the benefit of said G.R. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 14.3.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent authority is directed to grant the benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner herein and all consequential benefits arising out of the said G.R. within a period of four months from the receipt of this order. 13. The present application is allowed accordingly. Direct service is permitted.