IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Biren Vaishnav, J.
Viralkumar Jayshukhbhai Patel – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Gujarat - Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 11291 of 2022 with R/Special Civil Application No. 11543 of 2022
Decided On : 07-10-2022
Leave to amend - Regularization of Services - Special Civil Application No. 11074 of 2022, Special Civil Application No. 13873 of 2022, Special Civil Application No. 12537 of 2011, Special Civil Application No. 6289 of 2011, Special Civil Application No. 2207 of 2014 - The court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for their entitlement to regular payscale on the post of Multi-purpose Health Workers (Male) from their original date of appointment and consequential benefits which have been paid to the similarly situated employees within a specified period.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought direction for consideration of their initial services rendered on a contractual basis along with their regular services for all purposes, including seniority, pay, leave, and other benefits, and payment of arrears of pay and allowances from the date of their initial appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the petitioners, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for their entitlement to regular payscale on the post of Multi-purpose Health Workers (Male) from their original date of appointment and consequential benefits within a specified period.
Issues: Entitlement to regular payscale and consequential benefits for initial services rendered on a contractual basis along with regular services.
Ratio Decidendi: Equals are required to be treated equally, and dissimilar treatment cannot be accorded to the same class of people. The action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners was found to be arbitrary, discriminatory, and in violation of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The petition is allowed, and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for their entitlement to regular payscale on the post of Multi-purpose Health Workers (Male) from their original date of appointment and consequential benefits within a specified period.
JUDGMENT :
1. Leave to amend.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Kurven Desai, learned AGP, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the State respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and Ms.Sejal Mandavia, learned counsel, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 5. With consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
3. The case of the petitioners is that they are entitled to the direction for consideration of their initial services rendered on a contractual basis along with their regular services pursuant to their appointment on regular basis for all purposes, including for the purposes of Seniority, Pay, Leave and other consequential benefits and make payment of arrears of pay and allowances to the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment.
4. The case of the respondents, according to Ms.Sejal Mandavia, learned advocate, is that they were given appointments on contractual basis and thereafter regularized in the year 2006, and therefore, they were not entitled to the benefits of regularization from the initial date.
5. Mr.Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners, would rely on several orders passed by this Court in respective petitions. Mr.Joshi, learned counsel, places reliance on an oral judgment dated 21.09.2022 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 11074 of 2022, which read as under:
2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today.
3. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed to direct the respondents to take into consideration the initial service rendered by the petitioners on contractual basis alongwith their regular service, pursuant to their appointment on regular basis, for all purposes, including for the purpose of Seniority, Pay, Leave and other consequential benefits and make payment of arrears of pay and allowances to the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment.
4. Mr. Thakkar, learned counsel for the respondent – District Development Officer would object the petition on the ground of an inordinate delay in filing the petition and no explanation is given for such delay. Even if the delay is overlooked, the Division Bench while deciding LPA No.85 of 2020, the observations made in such decision which he would rely upon as stated in affidavit.
5. In view of order dated 29.07.2022 passed in SCA No.13873 of 2022, which reads as under, the petition is allowed.
“1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives 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 Multi-purpose 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 joi
Equals are required to be treated equally, and dissimilar treatment cannot be accorded to the same class of people.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that equals are required to be treated equally, and dissimilar treatment to the same class of people is not permissible. The judgment emphasizes th....
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 pol....
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 rationa....
Continuity of service and substantive rights are essential for regularization, despite procedural differences in initial appointments.
The court ruled that employees employed for lengthy periods cannot be denied regularization of service, emphasizing principles of fairness and equality under the Constitution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the government's action of cancelling the antedating regularization was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated the principles of natural just....
Regularization of services must be from the date of initial appointment for similarly situated employees to avoid discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the advertisement for appointment of Multipurpose Health Workers and the recruitment rules framed under Section 203 read with Section 323 of t....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.