The central legal point established in the judgment is that denying employment benefits based on categorization as a part-timer is misconceived and constitutes unfair labor practice.

JUDGMENT :

N.V.ANJARIA, J.

Heard learned advocate Mr.Munshaw for the appellants, learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave for the respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Krutik Parikh for the respondent State.

2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 7.7.2022 of learned single Judge whereby learned single Judge allowed the petition of respondent No.1- original petitioner, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and extend the benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988 on the basis of number of years of service rendered by the petitioner.

2.1 Special Civil Application was filed by the petitioner making following prayers,

“(i) To direct the respondents to grant benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner and may be pleased to direct the respondents to place the petitioner in fixed pay after completion of five years of service and thereafter to place the petitioner in payscale after 10 years of continuous service and further direction may be issued against the respondents to give all consequential benefits to the petitioner after extending aforestated benefits under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 including regular pay-scale on the date the petitioner completed 10 years of service.

(ii) To direct the respondents to extend all the benefits of regular post with regular pay-scale in favor of the petitioner from the date he completed 10 years of service.

(iii) To direct respondents to pay difference of salary to the petitioner after placing the petitioner in pay-scale after completion of 10 years of service.”

3. The case of the petitioner in the petition was inter alia that he was appointed as water-bearer on 10.6.1997. According to the petitioner he was required to do the clerical work but was paid meagre amount of Rs.300/- per month which subsequently increased to Rs.1350/- per month. His case was specific that he was required to do work for whole day. According to the petitioner he served under respondent authority right from 1997, rendering 19 years of continuous service.

3.1 It was the case that a similarly situated employee had filed Special Civil Application before this court for grant of benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, in which proceedings they succeeded upto the stage of Letters Patent Appeal. It was the grievance that though the petitioner was entitled to be treated equally, since had completed 19 years of continuous service and was also entitled to 7th Pay Commission scale. The case of the petitioner was that he was given only minimum wages at the daily-rate though work of clerical nature was taken from 8:00 a.m. in the morning till 6:00 p.m. in the evening. The petitioner made representation dated 9.7.2018 for grant of benefits emanating from Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

3.2 The petition was contested by respondent Taluka Development Officer by filing affidavit-in-reply to submit that the wages were paid to the petitioner as per policy of the Government. According to the stand of the respondent, Resolution dated 17.10.1988 was not applicable to the petitioner as it would apply to the daily-rated workman and that the petitioner could be treated as part-timer only. It was contended that, ‘a part-timer rendering service for more than four hours per day is to be paid wages as if he is rendering service for the whole day but that does not mean that the petitioner is engaged as daily wager for whole day.’ It was contended that the post water-bearer was not a sanctioned post.

3.3 Learned single Judge relied on the decision of this court in District Rural Development Agency, Vadodara Vs. Arvindbhai Ramanbhai Chauhan being Special Civil Application No.8468 of 2014, decided on 12.9.2014 and allowed the petition. The respondents were directed to extend the benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner.

4. Learned advocate for the appellant repeated the contentions, which was advanced before learned single Judge. It