Back
N. V. ANJARIA, NIRAL R. MEHTA
Solanki Shobanaben Govindbhai – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Administrative Officer – Respondent
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 Commiss
Relief granted by the court to similarly situated persons should be extended to all, subject to exceptions such as laches and delays, and acquiescence.
The legal principle that similarly situated persons should be treated equally, subject to exceptions of laches and delays, was central to the court's decision.
The court ruled that arbitrary rejection of absorption applications based on age and literacy violates constitutional rights, mandating equal treatment for similarly situated employees.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the adoption of a government resolution by an employer obligates the employer to grant the benefits to the employees as per the resolution, an....
When the Labour Court grants continuity of service, the benefits arising from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 should be available as a necessary corollary, and the employer cannot deny con....
Reinstatement of a worker inherently includes continuity of service, entitling them to benefits from the initial date of joining.
Part-time employees cannot claim regularization or equal pay unless appointed against sanctioned posts, as per established legal precedents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the state to confer similar benefits to similarly situated persons as per previous court decisions.
Point of law: Facts and the principles of law highlighted, render the inaction on part of the respondent authorities (a) in not extending the benefits of 6th Pay Commission to the petitioners; (b) in....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
