( 1 ) SINCE the common question of entitlement of regularization in service of Kalol Municipality arises in these petitions, the same have been heard together and disposed of by this common judgement.

( 2 ) THE petitioners have inter-alia contended that they have been continuously working on their respective post since last 11 to 31 years with the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 is Kalol Municipality. Respondent No. 2 is the District Panchayat, Panchmahals and respondent No. 3 is the State of Gujarat. The case of the petitioners is that they are entitled to be regularized in service in the respective posts and that they are entitled to equal pay for equal work. The nature of the work attached to their posts is of permanent nature. According to the contention of the petitioners, they are working on permanent posts of Octroi Clerk, Naka Watchman, Octroi Watchman, Ravania, Valveman, Pump Driver, Gardener, Supervisor, Watersupply Watchman, Fireman, Fire Fighter Driver and Fireman, in the office of Kalol Municipality. The duties and responsibilities of the petitioners are also of permanent nature and it is exactly similar to the duties and responsibilities performed by regular employees. the petitioners have also contended that they are deprived of their valuable right for equal pay for equal work as they are working on permanent posts and doing the same work as that of regular employees since more than 11 to 31 years. The petitioners have, therefore, contended that the respondent Municipality has indulged in unfair labour practice of not giving equal pay for equal work and of not regularizing on the respective posts though they are qualified for being appointed on the permanent posts. The petitioners have, therefore, invoked the extraordinary, equitable, plenary writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 3 ) THE respondents have challenged the claim of the petitioners made in the petitions. The respondent Municipality has also filed affidavit-in-reply inter-alia denying the allegations of unfair labour practice, exploitation or denial of equal pay for equal work. It is the case of the respondent Municipality that the petitioners are not entitled to be regularized. The right to get equal pay for equal work is also challenged contending that the petitioners are appointed dehors the rules and requirements of public institutions. Regularization of the petitioners as claimed is not in the interest of public employment.

( 4 ) THE respondent Municipality has stated that many persons were given work on ad-hoc basis by the authorities of the then Kalol Gram and Nagar Panchayat without adopting any procedure as required and expected to be followed by the public institutions. However, it is also stated that after coming into existence of different Municipal Boroughs, the matters have been taken up by the concerned District Panchayat for regularizing the services of the employees as per the instructions and policy of the State. It is also submitted that names of all employees who are petitioners in this batch of petitions and other employees are sent to the District Panchayat, Panchmahal District for consideration in this behalf. the claim made by the petitioners in the petitions for being appointed on regular basis in the regular scale are seriously controverted in the affidavit in reply filed by the Chief Officer, Kalol Municipality.

( 5 ) THOUGH the petitioners are working since long, they are still temporary employees of the respondent Municipalities. Particulars of the petitioners employees are as under;-