Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Guj) 931

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BIREN VAISHNAV, J.
Shrimali Manojkumar Manilal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 5040, 3468, 3468, 5409, 10807, 10808, 10994, 11324, 12375, 12377, 12401, 12960, 12986, 13554, 13680, 13404, 13370, 13388, 14868, 13139, 13147, 13151, 13198, 14946, 15536, 16290 of 2022, Civil Application (For Direction) No. 1 of 2022, Civil Application (For Fixing Date Of Hearing) No. 1 of 2022
Decided on : 19-10-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :MR. HRIDAY BUCH, ADVOCATE for MR. NISHIT GANDHI, MR. N.K.MAJMUDAR, MR. DENISHKUMAR B MORAKHIA, MS. KRUTI M SHAH, MR. VAIBHAV VYAS, MR. DISHANT K THAKKAR, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:MR. H.S.MUNSHAW, ADVOCATE, MR. UTKARSH SHARMA

The principle of equality before the law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of irrelevant factors, the principle of reasonableness, which requires that government action be based on rational and justifiable grounds, and the principle of natural justice, which requires that individuals be given a fair hearing before their rights are affected.

Headnote:
The Court held that the petitioners, who were Multi Purpose Health Workers (MPHWs), were entitled to the benefits of regularization and reinstatement from their initial date of appointment, as had been granted to similarly situated employees in other districts. The Court found that the petitioners had been discriminated against because they were not given the same benefits as other MPHWs, even though they had worked for many years and had undergone the same selection process. The Court also found that the State Government had failed to provide a rational explanation for the discrimination. The Court's decision was based on the following key legal principles: 1. The principle of equality before the law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of irrelevant factors. 2. The principle of reasonableness, which requires that government action be based on rational and justifiable grounds. 3. The principle of natural justice, which requires that individuals be given a fair hearing before their rights are affected.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were Multi Purpose Health Workers (MPHWs) who had been working under the respective District Panchayats from 1995-1996 on an ad-hoc basis. They had continued even after the expiry of their 11 months period, over a period of time. Their prayer was that their services be regularized on the same terms and conditions as done so in the case of the petitioners of SCA No. 6289 of 2011 and 12537 of 2011.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the petitioners had been discriminated against because they were not given the same benefits as other MPHWs, even though they had worked for many years and had undergone the same selection process. The Court also found that the State Government had failed to provide a rational explanation for the discrimination.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to the benefits of regularization and reinstatement from their initial date of appointment, as had been granted to similarly situated employees in other districts. 2. Whether the petitioners had been discriminated against because they were not given the same benefits as other MPHWs, even though they had worked for many years and had undergone the same selection process. 3. Whether the State Government had failed to provide a rational explanation for the discrimination.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the benefits of regularization and reinstatement from their initial date of appointment, as had been granted to similarly situated employees in other districts. The Court found that the petitioners had been discriminated against because they were not given the same benefits as other MPHWs, even though they had worked for many years and had undergone the same selection process. The Court also found that the State Government had failed to provide a rational explanation for the discrimination. The Court's decision was based on the following key legal principles: 1. The principle of equality before the law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of irrelevant factors. 2. The principle of reasonableness, which requires that government action be based on rational and justifiable grounds. 3. The principle of natural justice, which requires that individuals be given a fair hearing before their rights are affected.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petitions and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for their entitlement to regular pay-scale on the post of Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male)/Female Health Workers from their original date of appointment and consequential benefits which have been paid to similarly situated employees namely petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 12537 of 2011 and 2207 of 2014. The petitioners shall be granted such benefits as referred to hereinabove within a period of 14 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The court has consistently held that employees who have been appointed on ad-hoc or contractual basis and have continued in service for a significant period, often exceeding ten years, are entitled to consideration for regularization and benefits similar to those granted to similarly situated employees in other districts (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The principle of equality before the law mandates that employees in similar circumstances must be treated equally, and any discriminatory treatment is unlawful. Discrimination based on district, appointment type, or procedural lapses without rational basis is contrary to constitutional guarantees (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that the delay or casual approach by authorities in initiating regular selection processes, especially when appointments were made with the condition of future regularization, results in a violation of the employees’ rights. Such delays and procedural lapses can be deemed unreasonable and arbitrary (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Discrimination in regularization benefits across districts, despite similar appointments and service durations, is unjustified and violates the principles of natural justice and equality. The court directs authorities to extend benefits uniformly to all similarly situated employees (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Employees who have been working continuously for many years, even beyond the period of initial appointment, and who have participated in regular selection processes, are entitled to regularization from their initial appointment date, provided procedural conditions were met (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court recognizes that irregular appointments that are not illegal, and employees who have worked for a long duration, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure, ensuring non-arbitrariness and reasonableness in administrative actions (!) (!) (!) .
Orders of termination or rejection of regularization requests, when based on procedural lapses or delays attributable to authorities, are subject to review and can be set aside if they violate the principles of fairness and equality (!) (!) .
The court has repeatedly directed authorities to consider the cases of employees for regularization from their initial appointment dates, with consequential benefits, within specified timeframes, ensuring compliance with constitutional principles (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Discriminatory treatment based on non-uniform policies or selective benefits, especially when similar employees have been regularized elsewhere, is unlawful. Uniform policies should be applied to prevent discrimination and uphold the constitutional guarantees of equality and non-arbitrariness (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Overall, the legal principles reinforce that employees who have served for a long period, participated in regular processes, and are similarly situated must be granted regularization and associated benefits, and any administrative delays or discriminatory practices must be rectified in accordance with constitutional mandates.

JUDGMENT :

Special Civil Application Nos. 14946 of 2022, 5040 of 2022, 3468 of 2022, 13139 of 2022, 12375 of 2022, 12377 of 2022, 12960 of 2022, 12986 of 2022, 13554 of 2022, 13680 of 2022, 13404 of 2022, 13370 of 2022, 13388 of 2022, 14868 of 2022, 13147 of 2022, 13151 of 2022 and 13198 of 2022.

1. These petitions are filed challenging the order dated 07.01.2022/15.01.2022 and 07.05.2022 by which the petitioners’ representations seeking reinstatement and regularization on the post of Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) (Class-III) with the Panchayat Department in accordance with the order passed by this Court on 25.07.2018 have been rejected.

2. Facts in brief are as under:

2.1 The petitioners were working as Multi Purpose Health Workers (Male), Class-III (for short ‘MPHW’) from their respective dates of appointment. These petitioners were appointed pursuant to an advertisement and an examination and interview. Their appointments were on a fixed salary on contractual basis.

2.2 These appointments were in different district panchayats and therefore each district panchayat treated its employees differently. Petitions were filed before this Court with a prayer that their services be regularized at par with similarly situated employees of Rajkot and Sabarkantha District Panchayats.

2.3 First in point of time, Special Civil Application No. 6289 of 2011 was filed by such MPHWs working under the Junagadh District Panchayat who were appointees of the year 1990. This Court by an order dated 10.08.2016, allowed the petitions with a direction that the petitioners deserve to be granted the benefits of regularization as have been granted by the order dated 13.10.2009 passed by the State Government in case of similarly situated employees of the Sabarkantha District Panchayat.

2.4 The Gujarat State Karmachari Sankalan Samiti filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.12537 of 2011 praying for a writ of mandamus to the respondents to regularize their services and to treat them at par with persons in other districts. They also challenged the order of termination dated 06.01.2018 by which during the pendency of the petition, their services have been terminated. By an oral judgment dated 25.07.2018, relying on the decision rendered in Special Civil Application No. 6289 of 2011, the petition was allowed, the termination order dated 06.01.2018 was quashed and set aside and a direction was issued that the petitioners be regularized in the same manner from the same date as mentioned in the order in SCA No. 6289 of 2011. 2.5 The order passed in Special Civil Application No. 12537 of 2011 was carried in appeal by the State. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1237 of 2019 was filed. The Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 16.10.2019, dismissed the appeal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court on 26.10.2020, confirmed the order of the Division Bench in the SLP filed by the State. An interim order was passed on 06.08.2019 in the appeal, wherein, it was directed that the applicants/respondents in the appeal and other similarly situated employees be paid minimum wages.

2.6 Special Civil Application No. 13519 of 2011, which petition was filed by some MPHWs seeking similar reliefs was disposed of by an order dated 10.12.2019 in light of the decision dated 10.08.2016 passed in SCA No. 6289 of 2011 with a direction that similar benefits which are conferred to MPHWs of Rajkot, Junagadh, Sabarkantha and Valsad districts may be extended to the petitioners working in Kheda District. Similar petition was filed being Special Civil Application No. 15228 of 2012 of MPHWs of Rajpipla which too by an order dated 05.12.2019 was allowed in terms of the order dated 10.08.2016 in SCA No. 6289 of 2011.

2.7 Contempt petitions were moved by one of the petitioners of SCA No. 12537 of 2011 where the Court observed that the benefits of regularization was to be given even to the non petitioners. That order was passed on 10.01.2020. On 28.02.2020, in the Contempt Petitions, the Divisio