The court emphasized that it cannot examine disputed questions of fact in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and directed the petitioners to file substantive proceedings challenging the termination before the appropriate forum.

ORDER :

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 26.07.2022 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.18863 of 2021 and allied matter, whereby, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the present appellants – original petitioners.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1. It is the case of the original petitioners in special Civil Application No.18863 of 2021 that they were working with the respondents since the year 2001 and therefore they are entitled to the benefits of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 issued by the State Government. It is further the case of the petitioners that the said benefit was not granted to the petitioners and therefore they filed Special Civil Application No.6450 of 2017 before this Court. The learned Single Judge issued notice in the said petition. Thereafter, the respondents orally terminated the services of the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, filed Civil Application No.5700 of 2017 in the said pending petition. The learned Single Judge passed an order on 27.04.2017 and thereby granted ad-interim relief in favour of the petitioners.

2.2. It is stated that the respondents filed Letters Patent Appeal No.1921 of 2017 before the Division Bench of this Court wherein the respondents challenged the order dated 27.04.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 15.11.2017, disposed of the said appeal as the learned advocate for the present appellants – original petitioners declared before the Division Bench that he does not press Civil Application No.5700 of 2017 and therefore the said application came to be withdrawn. The Division Bench of this Court, thereafter, directed the Registry to list Special Civil Application No.6450 of 2017 filed by the petitioners for granting the benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988.

2.3. It is further the case of the petitioners that thereafter they filed another Civil Application No.1 of 2021 in pending Special Civil Application No.6450 of 2017, wherein, once again, the applicants – petitioners prayed for quashing and setting aside the oral order of termination of services of the applicants – petitioners. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said application vide order dated 24.11.2021. However, while dismissing the said application, learned Single Judge clarified that it is open for the petitioners – applicants to file substantive proceedings challenging the termination before appropriate forum by filing appropriate proceedings.

2.4. It is, therefore, the case of the petitioners that they filed separate Special Civil Application No.18863 of 2021 and the learned Single Judge, vide common impugned order dated 26.07.2022, dismissed both the petitions filed by the petitioners and therefore the petitioners have challenged the said order by filing present appeal.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. U. T. Mishra for the appellants – original petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Ronak Raval for the respondent.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra assailed the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge mainly on the ground that the learned Single Judge has wrongly held that there is no employer – employee relationship between the petitioners and the respondents and therefore they cannot seek any benefit similar to that of the other appointees of the State Government or the Department of the State Government. It is submitted that the petitioners produced sufficient documentary evidence before the learned Single Judge including the identity cards issued by the respondents from which it can be established that the petitioners are the employees of the respondent – State Government, in spite of that, the learned Single Judge has discarded the said documentary evidence produced by the petitioners and given the aforesaid finding. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra would further submit that the learned Single Judge has