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) 880

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
BHAGAVANJI BHULAJI THAKOR & others - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & others - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16903 of 2020
Decided On : 25-08-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For The Appellant : MS VIDHI J BHATT
For The Respondent: MS DHWANI TRIPATHI, AGP.

Point of law: The appointment as daily wagers at the grass root level are without following any regular procedure laid down for regular recruitment and therefore they do not have any right of regularization or the benefits flowing from the Government.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 – Article 14 and 16 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 25B - Government employee - Dispute – Benefits - Learned advocate has submitted that daily-wage employees working in various Government offices /departments are to be extended all benefits that are admissible to permanent or regular employees in establishments of State - Said benefits include : (a) Public Holidays, (b) Transport Allowance, (c) Leave Travel Concession, (d) Arrears of pay as per Pay Commission Recommendations (e) Leave encashment at time of retirement and death, (f) Counting of service from date of joining for purpose of computing pension, gratuity and other pensionary/retirement benefits, and (g) Higher scales of pay after completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service in lieu of promotion - She has submitted that the said issue is squarely covered by the decision passed in Letters Patent Appeal reported and decision- Learned advocate has submitted that those daily-wagers, who approached this Court got all benefits of Government Resolution - It is submitted that respondent authorities ought to have considered representations made by petitioners and granted them same benefits, no action in the direction of extending same benefits to petitioners has so far been initiated by the respondent authorities.

Finding of the court : Division Bench has specifically held that daily wagers appointed after resolution are also entitled to benefits of Transport allowances, Traveling Allowances, LTC and Leave Encashment - In this view of the matter, present petition succeeds - Respondents hereby directed to grant the benefits to petitioners as conferred to similarly situated employees, after implementation of judgment and order passed by Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal and allied matters the judgment and order passed in Letters Patent Appeal and allied matters and judgment passed in Letters Patent Appeal and allied matters.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for the respondent-State.

2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the directions to give him benefits as per the decision of this Court vide order dated 18.03.2011 passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.958 of 2001 and other cognate appeals.

3. Learned advocate Ms.Vidhi Bhatt has submitted that the daily-wage employees working in various Government offices /departments are to be extended all the benefits that are admissible to permanent or regular employees in the establishments of the State. The said benefits include : (a) Public Holidays, (b) Transport Allowance, (c) Leave Travel Concession, (d) Arrears of pay as per the 5th Pay Commission Recommendations from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.1997, (e) Leave encashment at the time of retirement and death, (f) Counting of service from the date of joining for the purpose of computing pension, gratuity and other pensionary/retirement benefits, and (g) Higher scales of pay after completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service in lieu of promotion. She has submitted that the said issue is squarely covered by the decision dated 18.03.2011 passed in Letters Patent Appeal no. 958 of 2001 reported in 2011 (2) GLR 1290 and decision dated 28.12.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal no. 1588 of 2018 and also, by a decision of the Division Bench passed in the matter between Executive Engineer, Panchayat vs. Samudabhai Jyotibhai Phedi reported in 2017 (4) GLR 2952. However, by ignoring and turning a blind eye to the settled law and various decisions of this Court, the respondent authorities have decided not to grant the petitioners all the benefits that are admissible to those employees who are governed by Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

4. Learned advocate Ms.Vidhi Bhatt has submitted that those daily-wagers, who approached this Court got all the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It is submitted that the respondent authorities ought to have considered the representations made by the petitioners and granted them the same benefits, however, no action in the direction of extending the same benefits to the petitioners has so far been initiated by the respondent authorities. She has further placed reliance on the judgment dated 18.11.2019 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.21408 of 2016 and submitted that the said judgment is confirmed by the Division Bench vide order dated 25.09.2020 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.613 of 2020. She has submitted that all the benefits arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court and the judgment of this Court, have been granted to the employees of the Agriculture and Cooperation Department vide Government Resolution dated 06.01.2014 and the office orders dated 28.09.2017 and 18.07.2016 to the daily wagers working in the said department. It is submitted that the daily wagers working in all the departments of Government of Gujarat are paid the benefits of Transport allowance, Traveling Allowance, Leave Encashment and LTC available to class-IV employees. She has submitted that the petitioners are also similarly situated employees/daily-wagers working in the respondent department and hence, they are also entitled to the similar benefits, which are conferred to the employees of other departments.

5. Learned AGP has vehemently submitted that the writ petition may not be allowed since the State is yet to examine whether the petitioner would be entitled to such benefits.

6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. The documents and judgments, on which the reliance is placed are also perused.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are granted the other benefits as per the Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 and they are seeking ancillary benefits like Leave Encashment, Travelling Allowance etc, which are available to the Class-IV employees. The aforesaid grant of ancillary benefits was subjec

    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