Back
2020 Supreme(Guj) 654
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R.M. CHHAYA, ILESH J. VORA, JJ.
State of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Ranchhodbhai Shamjibhai Nakum and Others – Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No. 47 of 2018, Special Civil Application No. 22301 of 2007, Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2018
Decided On : 11-09-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Tirthraj Pandya.
For the Respondent: Mr. N.K. Majmudar.
IMPORTANT POINT
It is required to be noted that as such some of the original petitioners - employees are already granted the benefit of G.R. dated 16.08.1973 before many years and they are converted to temporary establishment long back.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16 - Employment and Service matter - Appointed as work-charge - Daily wager -Workman - Government Resolution - Retirement - It is held that all those respective petitioners - work charged employees were/are required to be converted to temporary establishment, but as observed herein above, not automatically on completion of their 5 years of service as work charged employees. Consequently, they shall be entitled to all the benefits which may be available to the employees working on temporary establishment.
Fact of Case
Respondents original petitioners were initially appointed as work-charge in different offices of the State - Resolution dated 4.7.1973 the State Government provides for conversation of daily wager to the work-charge establishment - Public Work Department of the State of Gujarat thereafter issued Resolution dated 16.8.1973 for conversation of work charge post of maintenance repairs and irrigation management under PWD into temporary establishment - The record indicates that in the year 1987 the State Government issued various Government Resolutions directing the head of department not to appoint any daily wager on the establishment.
Finding of Court
The impugned direction/s in respect of work-charged employees namely all those work-charged employees to be absorbed/converted to temporary establishment on their completion of 5 years' service and they shall be paid the consequential benefits accordingly is hereby quashed and set aside and is modified to the extent and it is held that all those petitioners - work-charged employees who have worked for more than 20 years as work-charged employees shall be entitled to conversion to temporary establishment as per the G.R. dated 16.08.1973 from the date on which they complete 20 years of service as work-charged and they shall be entitled to all the benefits which may be available to the employees working in the temporary establishment, including the benefit of higher pay scale/grade if at all the same is being paid to the employees working in the temporary establishment, however they shall be paid the arrears on such conversion to temporary establishment for the period preceding 3 years of filing of the respective petitions.
Result: Appeal partly allowed
ORDER :
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 8.8.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge relied upon the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 10829 of 20003 and other allied matters, the State has preferred this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Notice for final disposal was issued by the Division Bench vide order dated 15.1.2018.
2. The following facts are necessary to be incorporated:
2.1. That the respondents original petitioners were initially appointed as work-charge in different offices of the State. Resolution dated 4.7.1973 the State Government provides for conversation of daily wager to the work-charge establishment. Public Work Department of the State of Gujarat thereafter issued Resolution dated 16.8.1973 for conversation of work charge post of maintenance repairs and irrigation management under PWD into temporary establishment. The record indicates that in the year 1987 the State Government issued various Government Resolutions directing the head of department not to appoint any daily wager on the establishment. The State Government issued Resolutions dated 3.2.1987, 11.7.1988, 31.3.1989, 30.5.1989, 5.6.1989 and 5.1.1990 relating to ban on the recruitment of daily wagers by the Head of Department. By Resolution dated 20.08.2014 the Road and Building Department of the State of Gujarat as a policy decision cancelled the earlier Government Resolution dated 16.8.1973 and in the said decision, it was clarified that so far as those cases wherein such benefits have already been granted the same shall not be disturbed, however, in remaining cases the Government Resolution dated 16.8.1973 came to be superseded.
2.2. As the record reveals that the State Government issued Resolution dated 20.08.2016 which came to be challenged by the affected persons by filing writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 10829 of 2003 and other allied matters. The learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment and order dated 4.2.2016 was pleased to uphold the policy of the State Government and also issued certain directions. The present respondents are also similarly situated work charge and therefore, they filed writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 22301 of 2007 for similar prayers. The learned Single Judge following the judgment rendered in Special Civil Application No. 10829 of 2003 and other allied matters dated 4.2.2016 disposed of the writ petition.
2.3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 4.2.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge, the State has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
3. Heard Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State and Mr. N.K. Majmudar, learned advocate for the respondents.
4. At the outset, learned Assistant Government pointed out that as observed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 380 of 2016 and other allied appeals which arise mainly out of Special Civil Application No. 10829 of 2003 and allied petitions. Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that the Division Bench has been pleased to partly allow the appeal and modify the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. Mr. Pandya, learned AGP, therefore, submitted that this Appeal be partly allowed and directions be modified accordingly by following the judgment of the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 380 of 2016 and other allied appeals.
5. Mr. N.K. Majmudar, learned advocate for the respondents-original petitioners candidly submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal N
