IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Sonia Gokani, J.
Taleshkumar Maganbhai Patel & 45 others - Petitioners
Versus
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Thro' Commissioner and another - Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 11441, 13853 of 2012 with Special Civil Application No. 14916, 15336, 14832, 14731, 13876, 16044, 13877, 14091, 14326, 13583 of 2013. with Special Civil Application No. 4758, 3371, 12057, 9502, 6181, 6564, 8269, 5196, 14121 of 2014
Decided On : 23-06-2015
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Petitions since involve identical questions of facts and law are being decided by this common judgment and order - Prayers sought for in present group of writ petition in opinion of this Court are not found acceptable and petitions deserves rejection - Claiming for regularization of service -Corporation invited applications from those employees working in Class who had successfully completed at least one year of service - Corporation has denied of petitioners having worked with artificial breaks for all these years is also denied that office order dated of Solid Waste Management & Conservancy Services purports to bear eligibility for regularization or absorption as contended by petitioners with intention that a deliberate suppression made by petitioners with respect to their services as daily wage employee - Instructions/circular did not have any clarification with regard to age restriction eligibility qualification - Application filed by petitioners contended that they are part time Daily Wagers, working with Municipal Corporation in Anti-malaria activities - Appointments not based on either undergoing selection process any statutes or Rules or on basis of merits - Neither they are working against sanctioned posts Held, - Court to permit Corporation to continue this by way of a policy would also amount to endorsing an act of arbitrariness which is sought to be curbed by decisions of Apex Court discussed would also further embolden authorities to continue back door entry without resorting to open competitive selection - Corporation has already taken one-time measure of regularizing services of those who were there at time when other decisions came no direction for regularization is permissible under law -There does not appear to be any grievance against the work of any one a hope to get benefit of regularization and possible many of them have chosen not to join others when by virtue settlement many of their co-workers withdrew pending cases and have agreed to work for five years and on their completing the period of days as a Full-time Daily Wagers within five years and they have been ensured to be absorbed - This was done to buy industrial peace and for betterment of Institution in wake of large number of employees having been continued for many years as Part-time Daily Wagers who otherwise are found not to be entitled for benefit of completion of five years as Full time daily wagers - Petitioners are desirous of getting benefit of regularization they may approach authority concerned which may consider extending such benefit of settlement in their case bearing in mind chronology of events which had continued their employment as part time daily wagers for all these years - Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
Sonia Gokani, J.
This group of petitions since involve identical questions of facts and law, they are being decided by this common judgment and order. Facts in capsulized form, necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the issue, are drawn from Special Civil Application No. 11441 of 2012. The petitioners were appointed by the Malaria Health Department in the year 1994 and they continued to work with artificial breaks in service and since the year 2006, they are working continuously without break in service. A circular came to be issued on 31st July 2010 wherein the Corporation invited applications from those employees working in Class IV who had successfully completed atleast one year of service as on 30th June 2010 for preparing a select list for permanent post of Sahayak on two years' probation.
2. It is the say of the petitioners that they are paid a meager amount per month for the services rendered as a part time employees and in the monsoon seasons, the petitioners services are taken as full-time daily wagers. It is the say of the petitioners that their service have been extended from time to time on issuance of the circulars which are dated 12th April 2010; 6th May 2010; 27th May 2011 and 6th July 2012. It is also averred that they are possessing Identity Card issued by the Corporation and they are also sent for other work like election duty, etc. Some of the petitioners are Graduate, having qualification more than required for the services. It is the say of the petitioners that despite the requirement of the Corporation, they have not been regularised in service. They all have been working sincerely for more than eighteen years approximately, and therefore, there is a need to regularise their services and allow them all benefits; including those which are flowing from 6th Pay Commission. In essence, what has been sought is to regularise them in service for they having completed 5 years' and 900 days.
3. Following are the prayers sought for-
[B] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order and/or directions directing the respondents to absorb the petitioners with all consequential benefits from the date of appointment;
[C] Your Lordships may be please to direct the respondents to consider the petitioners as regular employees and give all consequential benefits of regular employees be granted to the petitioners;
[D] Your Lordships may be please to declare the action of the respondents of not regularizing the petitioners is arbitrary, discriminatory and against the law;
[E] Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the respondents from terminating the services of the petitioners and further direct respondents to continue services of the petitioners;
[F] Your Lordships may be please to give benefits of Circular dated 05.05.2010 to the petitioners;
[G] Your Lordships may be pleased to pass such other and further relief/s as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioners in the interest of justice."
4. In affidavit-in-reply, the Corporation has denied of petitioners having worked with artificial breaks for all these years. It is also denied that the office order dated 5th July 2010 of Solid Waste Management & Conservancy Services purports to bear the eligibility for regularization or absorption, as contended by the petitioners with the intention that a deliberate suppression made by the petitioners with respect to their services as daily wage employees. It is further the say of the respondent that Special Civil Application No. 5019 of 2001 and allied cases were instituted by some of the workmen wherein a settlement was arrived at but the same is in respect of only those daily wagers who had completed five years' and 900 days service as full-ti
Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa
Apangshu Mohan Lodh v. State of Tripura
Arun Tewari v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh
B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka
B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu
Barauni Refinery Pragatisheel Shramik Parishad v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation
Binod Kumar Gupta v. Ram Ashray Mahoto
Canteen Mazdoor Sabha v. Metallurgical & Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd.
Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal v. Leena Jain
Daily Rate Casual Labour v. Union of India
Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi
Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association v. State of Karnataka
Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P.
Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao
G.M. Security Paper Mills v. R.S. Sharma
Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Ltd.
General Manager, Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad v. R.S. Sharma
Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Vikram Chaudhary
Griha Kalyan Workers Union v. Union of India
Harbans Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto
Harman Singh v. Regional Transport Authority, Calcutta
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Dan Bahadur Singh
Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workman, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. L.V. Subramanyeswara
Kumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India
M.P State Coop. Bank Ltd., Bhopal v. Nanuram Yadav
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
Mewa Ram Kanojia v. A.I.I.M.S.
National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Somvir Singh
National Insurance Company Limited v. Kirpal Singh
Official Liquidator v. Dayanand
Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh
R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah
Randhir Singh v. Union of India
Renu v. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari
Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance & Investment Company Limited
S. Appukuttan v. Thundiyil Janaki Amma
Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai v. R. Govindaswamy
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi
Shriram Industrial Enterprises Limited v. Mahak Singh
State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh
State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh
State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh
State of Haryana v. Piara Singh
State of Haryana v. Surinder Kumar
State of Karnataka v. M.K. Kesari
State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohd. Ibrahim
State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa
State of Orissa v. Balram Sahu
State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty
State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar
State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal
State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia
State of West Bengal v. Pantha Chatterjee
Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD
Telecom District Manager v. Keshab Deb
The University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao
U.P. SEB v. Pooran Chand Pandey
U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers Association
Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin
Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.