The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of equality and non-discrimination, emphasizing the need for reasonableness in executive action and the requirement for a uniform policy for similarly situated employees.

ORDER :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Desai, learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State. With consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

2. Mr. Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relies on an order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 9089 of 2022 and allied matters dated 06.05.2022. The order reads as under:

“1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGPs waive service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent State.

2. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

3. It is the case of learned counsel for the petitioners that the case of the petitioners is similarly situated to the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 12537 of 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are entitled to the similar benefits as have been directed by the court in the order dated 23.01.2019 in Para 8.1. He would submit that a direction can be given to the respondents to extend similar consequential benefits to the petitioners herein.

4. This court vide order dated 25.07.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No. 12537 of 2011 in case of employees like the petitioners who prayed for a direction to regularize their services and treat them at par with similarly situated persons and grant them regularization from the date of their initial appointments as Multipurpose Health Workers (Male) with consequential and incidental benefits held as under:

7. It is admitted that initially, petitioners were given contractual appointment for 11 months and thereafter, they have been continued for all these years. Some of these petitioners have joined way back in the year 2004 and 2005 and working on fixed remuneration of Rs. 2500/-. The main ground of the respondents in denying the regular appointment to the petitioners and terminating their services is that initial appointment was on contractual basis.

8. This Court is of the considered opinion that such stand of the State Government in terminating the services of the petitioners, despite the fact that, petition of similarly situated other petitioners was allowed way back in the year 2011 and 2016. In these proceedings, respondents were party and decision was in the knowledge of the respondents. Case of the petitioners for increasing of remuneration from Rs. 2500/- to Rs. 9400/- was forwarded by Health and Family Welfare Department for consideration to the Finance Department. Finance Department in place of taking decision in favour of the employees have passed an order vide which the District Panchayats have been directed to terminate the services of the petitioners who have been working for considerable long time.

9. While disposing of Special Civil Application No. 6289 of 2011, this Court has held as under:

25. It may be true that in the case of District Rajkot, similarly situated MPHW (M) have been regularized by the concerned District Panchayat. However, it is obvious that in the case of Sabarkantha District Panchayat, the services of MPHW (M), who are identically situated to the petitioners, have been regularized, with restrospective effect, by the State Government, itself. The State Government has taken a policy decision in this regard, confined only to the MPHW (M) of Sabarkantha District. Why all similarly situated MPHW (M) in other Districts of the State have not been covered under a uniform policy, is certainly baffling. Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) such as petitioners, who were appointed on ad-hoc basis but have been denied the fruits of regular appointment only because the regular selection process was not filed until they had crossed the permissible age-limit, from a distinct class of employees. Different categories in a single class cannot be carved out by taking piecemeal decisions benefiting only a section of such employees. This would amount to sub-classification that would not be permissible in law, as there is no rational nexus