Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
DHARMAVIR SARVESHWARBHAI DHOLAKIA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11921 of 2020
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10845 of 2021
Decided On : 01-09-2021
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 14, 16 and 226 – Benefits – Denying to provide benefits - Case are that pursuant to order passed by Supreme Court, respondent-Board decided to give all admissible benefits to similarly situated employees including transport allowances, travelling allowance, transport travelling allowance, leave encashment, leave travel concession who are junior to petitioners and appointed - Petitioners were initially appointed as daily wagers to work in different offices of respondent-Gujarat Water Supply and Sewage Board - After completion of five years, petitioners were given benefit of GR and further benefits have been extended after completion of ten years and petitioners were paid salary as per regular appointed employees - It is the case of petitioners that employees of respondent-Board were granted all benefits as per GR who were appointed except the five benefits.
Finding of the Court :
It would also be worthwhile to mention here that judgment in case of Mahendrakumar Bhagwandas (supra) having been upheld up-to Supreme Court and all issues having been raised and having been discussed and dealt with, it would be unreasonable and unfair to original petitioners from denying benefit extended to other daily wagers covered by Government Resolution fourth group of appeals is by employees who have not been extended five benefits by learned Single Judge despite same having been claimed as relief in petitions, leave encashment benefit has been extended - For the reasons recorded, five benefits to these appellants not being extended cannot be sustained and as such, appellants of these appeals would also be entitled to same benefits as other similarly situated set of employees regarding five benefits - Accordingly, all aforesaid appeals are allowed to extent - Consequently, connected Civil Applications are also disposed of.
Result: Petitions are allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Ashlesha Patel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal for the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr. H.S.Munshaw for respondent No.2.
2. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State, learned advocate Mr. H.S.Munsahw waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2.
3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
B. Your Lordships be pleased to direct Respondents to extend the benefits of (I) Transport Allowance; (ii) Travelling Allowance; (iii) Transfer Travelling Allowance; (iv) Leave Encashment and (v) Leave Travel Concession to the present petitioners as such benefits have been extended to the similar situated employees (who are junior to present petitioners and appointed after 1994).
C. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners to grant benefits of (I) Transport Allowance; (ii) Travelling Allowance; (iii) Transfer Travelling Allowance ;(iv) Leave Encashment and (v) Leave Travel Concession.
D. Be pleased to pass any other further order as may be deemed fit, just and proper in facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”
4. Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the order dated 14.11.2014 passed by the Supreme Court, respondent-Board decided to give all admissible benefits to similarly situated employees including transport allowances, travelling allowance, transport travelling allowance, leave encashment, leave travel concession who are junior to the petitioners and appointed after 1994.
5. The petitioners were initially appointed as daily wagers to work in different offices of the respondent-Gujarat Water Supply and Sewage Board. After completion of five years, the petitioners were given the benefit of GR dated 17.10.1988 and further benefits have been extended after completion of ten years and the petitioners were paid the salary as per the regular appointed employees.
6. It is the case of the petitioners that employees of the respondent-Board were granted all the benefits as per GR dated 17.10.1988 who were appointed prior to 01.10.1988 except the five benefits viz. (i) Transport Allowance; (ii) Travelling Allowance; (iii) Transfer Travelling Allowance ; (iv) Leave Encashment and (v) Leave Travel Concession.
7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the respondent- Board, daily rated employees preferred petition being Special Civil Application No. 1563 of 1992. The said petition was allowed vide order dated 31.01.2013 directing the respondent- Board to give all the above mentioned benefits.
8. The respondent-Board challenged order dated 31.01.2013 by filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 325 of 2013 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 16.07.2014.
9. The respondent Board challenged the order dated 16.07.2014 before the Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 29108-29114/2014. By order dated 14.11.2014 the Supreme Court granted stay for a limited purpose against the payment of arrears. The Apex Court also observed that the benefits held admissible in terms of the judgemen
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
