SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Guj) 253

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SONIA GOKANI, GITA GOPI, JJ.
Shaileshkumar Lalabhai Rajat - Appellant
Versus
The State of Gujarat - Respondent
R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1787, 1788 of 2019 In R/Special Civil Application No. 17766, 17767 of 2019 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2019
Decided On : 31-03-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. M.A. Parekh(1088)
For the Respondent: Ms Vrunda Shah, Asst. Government Pleader(1)

The principle of regularization of services and grant of regular pay-scale as per relevant government resolutions, and the prohibition of discriminatory treatment in public employment.

Headnote:

Outsourcing - Regularization of Services - Government Resolution dated 30.03.2007, 30.11.2006, 16.02.2006, 18.01.2017 - The court discussed the appointments made through outsourcing basis, the relevant government resolutions, and the principle of regularization of services. The court found that the appellants' appointments were made in pursuance of public advertisements and after following due process of recruitment. The court also noted the discriminatory treatment meted out to the appellants and directed the respondent-authorities to consider their case for the grant of Regular Pay-scale in light of the relevant government resolutions and complete the process of regularization within three months.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants were appointed as Head Cook and Peon on a fixed salary for 11 months' contract through an Outsourcing Agency. They sought regularization of their services and grant of regular pay-scale, claiming discriminatory treatment and citing the case of another employee who was granted regular pay-scale after five years' service.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellants' appointments were made in pursuance of the relevant government resolutions and after following due process of recruitment. It noted the discriminatory treatment and directed the respondent-authorities to consider their case for regularization and grant of Regular Pay-scale.

Issues: The main issue was the regularization of the appellants' services and the grant of regular pay-scale, along with the discriminatory treatment they faced compared to another similarly situated employee.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the relevant government resolutions and the principle of regularization of services established in previous judgments to decide in favor of the appellants.

Final Decision: The impugned orders were quashed and set aside, and the respondent-authorities were directed to consider the appellants' case for the grant of Regular Pay-scale in light of the relevant government resolutions and complete the process of regularization within three months.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. Both these appeals involve identical questions on law and facts and hence, they are decided by this common judgment.

2. The appellants herein, original petitioners, seek to challenge the orders passed by the learned Single Judge of even date in Special Civil Application Nos.17767 of 2019 and 17766 of 2019 dated 14.10.2019, whereby the relief claimed by the appellants-writ petitioners to grant them benefit of regular pay-scale came to be rejected. The petitioners have prayed to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 5 to place the appellants-petitioners in the regular pay-scale, as provided in the Government Resolutions dated 16.02.2006 and 18.01.2007, with all consequential benefits. However, while rejecting both the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge observed that the appellants-petitioners had been rendering their services through an Outsourcing Agency and the long passage of time has rendered the petitions merit-less for the grant of reliefs as prayed for. In fact, the learned Single Judge observed that the very filing of the writ petitions was an abuse of the process of law and has thereby, rejected both the writ petitions by way of the impugned orders.

3. The facts in a nutshell are as under;

The appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No.1788 of 2019 (Original petitioner in Special Civil Application No.17766 of 2019) is presently serving as Head Cook whereas, the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No.1787 of 2019 (Original petitioner in Special Civil Application No.17767 of 2019) is presently serving Peon with respondent No.6, Bhuvar Uttarbuniyadi Ashram Shala, Panchmahal Jilla Utkarsh Mandal, Viraniya, Taluka : Morva-Hadaf, District : Dahod. The respondent No.6 had earlier issued Public Advertisement in local news-paper on 06.07.2009 for filling-up the Post of Head Cook along with other Posts and thereafter, on 28.07.2011 for filling-up the Post of Peon. In pursuance of the said public advertisements, the appellants-petitioners and others submitted their applications in the prescribed form. After following due process of law, the appellants-petitioners came to be appointed as Head Cook and Peon against vacant sanctioned posts vide orders dated 10.08.2009 and 25.08.2011 respectively for 11 months' contract on fixed salary of Rs.1500/- per month. After the issuance of the said orders of appointment by respondent No.6, Bhuvar Uttarbuniyadi Ashram Shala, Panchmahal Jill Utkarsh Mandal, Viraniya, Taluka : Morva-Hadaf, District : Dahod, the same were forwarded to Respondent No.5, Ashram Shala Adhikari, for necessary approval.

3.1 It is the case of the appellants-petitioners that as per the conditions laid down in the public advertisement, the initial appointment of the appellants-petitioners was made for 11 months' contract. Considering the satisfactory work, their services came to be extended from time to time. Thus, instead of regularizing their services by granting them regular payscale and other benefits, the appellants-petitioners have been continued in service on fixed salary since the date of their appointment though the respondent – Ashram Shala works under the direct control and supervision of the respondent – State. It is the further case of the appellants-petitioners that one Ms. Saraswatiben Vishnubhai Patel, who was also similarly situated, was granted appointment on the regular payscale on completion of five years' continuous service on the said Post, by order dated 29.06.2010. However, the appellants-petitioners were not extended the said benefit though their terms of appointment was similar to that of said Ms. Saraswatiben Vishnubhai Patel and no departmental inquiry had been initiated or was pending against the appellants-petitioners. The appellants-petitioners have, thus, claimed regularization with consequential benefits on the ground of parity and discriminatory treatment; and also on the ground that the respondent – Ashram Shala is working under the direct control and supervision of the res

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top