Point of Law: To pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner and other consequential benefits which are being paid to the regular employee. Such exercise shall be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.R. Koshti for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Hari Patel for learned advocate Mr. Deepak Sanchela for the respondent through video conference.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent Authorities to appoint the petitioners in his original post of Class-IV and to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of cleaner/ peon and to pay him salary and other benefits as are being paid to a regular driver;

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition this Honourable Court will be pleased to grant interim direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner on his original post and not to discontinue the services of the petitioner without following due procedure of law;

(C) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass such and further order as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.”

3. This Court (Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Anjaria) passed the following order on 16.01.2019 regarding the facts of the case while admitting the matter :

“Heard learned advocate Mr.K.R. Koshti for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Deepak Sanchela for the respondent – Halvad Municipality.

2. The petitioner happens to be a daily rated employee working as Cleaner since July, 1996. It appears that in Special Civil Application No.13836 of 2008, order was passed by this Court on 17th March, 2009 which in its relevant part reads as under.

“In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner and the respondent- Municipality are, obviously, bound by the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Division Bench in aforesaid L.P.A. No. 1202 of 2002 and cognate matters. It is pertinent that after the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Larger Bench has also, in case of Amreli Municipality v. Gujarat Pradesh Municipal Employees Union, reported in 2004 (3) G.L.R. 1841, issued certain directions and the respondent Municipality is, obviously, bound to follow and comply with the said directions.”

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, by communication dated 22nd June, 2009 the Municipality made proposal through the Collector to be forwarded to the Director of Municipalities for the purpose of filling up of post in question absorbing the petitioner, which was a Class IV post of Cleaner. It appears that pursuant to the proposal of the Municipality, office of Collector addressed letter dated 19th July, 2009 whereafter the office of Director of Municipalities by passing order dated 03rd September, 2013 permitted the Municipality to fill up the post by direct recruitment.

4. The grievance is that though five years have passed, the Municipality has not initiated the process which is to result into giving benefit to the petitioner of absorption as per the observations of this Court and the proposal made as above.

5. In the facts and circumstances obtaining, Rule, returnable on 07th March, 2019. By way of adinterim relief it is directed that the respondent – Municipality shall immediately start the necessary process and consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law.

6. At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner points out from the communication dated 09th July, 2009 from the office of the Collector who has recommended the case of the petitioner by mentioning the name of the petitioner for the purpose of giving appointment on the post of Class-IV.

7. It is further directed that during the pendency of the petition, service conditions of the petitioner shall not be altered in any manner to his detriment. The pendency of this petition shall not come in way in granting the benefit of appointment of the petitioner to the post in question in accordance with law.”

4. It appears that thereafter, the respondents did not grant the benefi