Back
Chavda Ranjitsinh Lakhubhai – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the petitions are taken up for final hearing.
3. By way of these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who were initially appointed as Forest Guards on fixed wage basis and got the benefit of inter district transfer post their period of regular service after five years, seek to challenge the resolutions dated 18.01.2017 and20.01.2018.
4. All these petitioners were appointed as Van Rakshaks in the years 2007to 2009on afixed pay for a period of five years. For the purpose of considering the issue, chronology of dates of service ofpetitionerno.1areconsidered. He was appointed on 21.09.2007 for a period of five years. On completion of five years of service, the petitioner was regularized in service vide an order dated 28.09.2012. A request of transfer was made on he being regularized and by an order dated 03.10.2012, the petitioner was transferred from Valsadtorange Deesa. The order of transfer would indicate that on his transfer, the incumbent wou
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the seniority of employees appointed on a fixed wage basis should be counted from the date of their initial appointment post the period of fiv....
The seniority of employees should not be affected by resolutions resulting in loss of seniority, and compliance with specific rules regarding examinations should be considered based on the circumstan....
Eligibility for promotion and higher grade scales must include all prior service, irrespective of department transfers, highlighting the unconstitutionality of arbitrary restrictions on seniority and....
Employees on fixed pay are entitled to have their seniority counted from their initial appointment date, despite transfer conditions relinquishing seniority.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the withdrawal of benefits without a hearing and the refusal to grant the petitioner the entitled higher pay scale was unjust and improper.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the withdrawal of benefits without providing an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard was unjust and improper, and the petitioner's entit....
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
