IMPORTANT POINT
The significance of documentary evidence, finality of court orders, and the impact of delay and laches on the dismissal of a petition.

JUDGMENT :

PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed by the appellant – original petitioner challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 25.09.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No. 5974 of 2016.

2. The prayers that were made before the learned Single Judge were to give direction to the original respondents to immediately release the arrears in scale of Rs.5,200/20,200/- (meant for skilled labour). It was further prayed to issue directions to immediately release the gratuity amount and unavailed privilege leave to the extent of 300 days.

3. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties, came to the conclusion that insofar as principal relief to grant payscale of skilled category is concerned, had no merits. The learned Single Judge further held that the claim of the petitioner for release of gratuity and unavailed privilege leave for 300 days are concerned, the same are required to be duly considered and in that aspect, the learned Single Judge held that the petitioner on two scores that is of gratuity and unavailed privilege leave succeeds and it directed the respondent authorities to release the gratuity to that extent.

4. The facts that led to filing of the petition was that the appellant – original petitioner was working as a daily wager with the respondent authorities since 01.03.1998. The petitioner was paid minimum wage of unskilled labour of Rs.4,009/- per month. In the year 2011, the petitioner raised a dispute that he is working as a driver since 1998 and receiving daily wages of Rs.4,009/- per month and not receiving regular pay-scale. It was the case of the petitioner that he is not getting minimum wage of skilled labour. Such aspect led the petitioner to prefer a writ petition before this Court being Special Civil Application No. 4094 of 2011. This Court vide order dated 13.07.2011 observed that issue as to whether the petitioner is working on the post of driver or not is to be considered in light of the representation and the documentary evidence that were to be produced by the petitioner. The Court further directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for wages according to the skilled category after considering entire record that may be supplied by the petitioner, and thereafter pass appropriate reasoned order within a period of two months.

4.1. Pursuant to the said direction issued by this Court, the authorities by way of order dated 14.10.2011 held that there is no sanction post of the driver. It was further observed that the petitioner was working as a daily wager and his appointment was as a daily wager and, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner to consider as a skilled worker was not appropriate. Looking to the necessary documentary evidence, the respondent authorities held that the petitioner was not a skilled worker and was a daily wager and in that aspect, rejected the application made by the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 4094 of 2011 on 13.07.2011.

5. The order passed by respondent authorities on 14.10.2011 was challenged by the petitioner by preferring a writ petition before this Court. The said writ petition came to be numbered as Special Civil Application No. 1759 of 2012. It was argued before this Court that over and above the impugned order dated 14.10.2011, there was another issue of granting regularization pursuant to Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It was urged in the writ petition that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. P.W.D., Employees Union & Ors., reported in 2013 (8) Scale 579, the case of the petitioner be considered and he be given the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. This Court vide order dated 26.02.2014 directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in para