Relief granted by the court to similarly situated persons should be extended to all, subject to exceptions such as laches and delays, and acquiescence.

JUDGMENT :

N.V.Anjaria, J.

Heard learned advocate Mr.Gaurav Mehta for the appellants and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Krutik Parikh for the respondent.

2. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment and order dated 7.2.2022, whereby, learned single Judge dismissed the Special Civil Application of the petitioner.

2.1 The Special Civil Application was filed by thirty petitioners in which they prayed to set aside communication dated 5.8.2019 issued by the Joint Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad city. The further prayer was to direct the respondent authorities to take back forthwith the petitioners in service and grant them all benefits given to the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.7462 of 2012 and allied cases, confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1155 of 2019 by judgment and order dated 9.5.2019. It was also prayed to give benefits to the petitioners by taking into account the guidelines of the Government Resolution dated 16.7.2019.

3. The case of the petitioners was inter alia that they were the Class-IV part-time employees working since more than ten years under the respondent police department in the office of the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad city. They were employed for minimum six hours and were paid fixed monthly wages. It was stated that in different Government offices, similar type of appointments were made for fixed hours and that such class of employees had been urging for regularization of their services in the department on the ground that the nature of work was permanent.

3.1 It was stated that the Finance Department passed Resolution dated 10.2.2006 withdrawing all the powers of all the departments of appointments to the part-time employees. In view of the said Resolution, services of the Class-IV employees in different department came to be terminated time to time. It was the case that all such employees required to be regularized. It was submitted that the Resolution dated 25.4.2012 came to be passed to finally issue the instructions that the services of the part-time employees would be terminated.

3.2 It was stated by the petitioners that similarly situated persons had approached this court by filing Special Civil Application No.7462 of 2012 which culminated into filing of Letters Patent Appeal No.1155 of 2019. Those petitioners succeeded and it was stated by virtue of the orders passed by the Letters Patent Appeal Bench that they were reinstated and benefits under Resolution dated 16.7.2019 were paid. Amomgst the petitioners herein, the services of the petitioner Nos.1, 4 to 8, 10, 11, 13 to 21 were already terminated in the year 2010 by order dated 1.4.2010. The services of the other petitioners were terminated on 23.2.2012.

4. In other words, the case of the petitioners was that since the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.7462 of 2012 which culminated into Letters Patent Appeal No.1155 of 2019, came to be granted the relief who agitated their right of regularization and grant of minimum pay scale, the petitioners were also entitled to the same.

5. Learned single Judge observed and held thus in the judgment.

“7. As far as the petitioners whose services were terminated in the year 2010 and 2012 as referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the affidavit therefore do not deserve consideration.

8. As far as remaining petitioners are concerned, it is State’s stand that the issue is pending consideration before the Adjudicating Authority.

9. Only all those petitioners whose number according to the reply is 12 and whose cases are pending consideration as per the affidavit be considered in accordance with law. For the remaining petitioners as stated in the affidavit in paras 4 and 5, the petition stands dismissed as admittedly, the cases of the petitioners whose services are terminated in the years 2010 and 2012 are fence-sitters as held by the decision of the case of Supreme Court in case of State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava reported in 2015 (1) SCC 347. ” (