SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Guj) 1118

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Dipak N. Joshi.
For the Respondents: Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia, Mr. Kurven Desai.

Equals are required to be treated equally, and dissimilar treatment cannot be accorded to the same class of people.

Headnote:

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:

    “1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Joshi, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 while Mr. Thakkar, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.5.

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

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