IMPORTANT POINT
Part-time employees are entitled to minimum pay under the circular but cannot claim continuation of service until superannuation.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. ADMIT. Learned advocates appear and waive service of notice of admission on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. With consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today itself.

3. The present Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, is directed against the order dated 19.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the captioned writ petition by directing the appellant – authorities to reinstate the respondents and also to pay minimum pay- scale, as envisaged in the Circular dated 16.07.2019 issued by the Government of Gujarat through its Finance Department with effect from 01.01.2019 till the date of reinstatement and continue to do so till the date of their superannuation.

4. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw, appearing for the appellants has contended that the directions contained in paragraph No. 11.2 of the impugned order directing the appellants to pay minimum wage till the date of superannuation is misconceived since all the respondents were employed as part-timers and by issuing such directions, it can be construed that they have to be employed till they reach at the age of superannuation. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw, has further submitted that in fact, all the respondents were terminated in the year 2006 and pursuant to their termination, a writ petition has been filed by them and a decision was taken by the appellant-authorities not to reinstate them. He has submitted that the said decision was assailed by the respondents in the captioned writ petition and accordingly, the learned Single Judge fell in error in issuing such directions.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw, has further submitted that the respondents being part-timers cannot, as a matter of right, claim to continue till the age of superannuation. Thus, it is urged that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge may be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Vidhi Bhatt, appearing for the respondent – employees has submitted that the issue raised in the Letters Patent Appeal as well as in the writ petition is no more res integra in view of the various decisions passed by this Court. She has placed reliance on the recent decision passed by the learned Single Judge, on the very same issue, dated 19.07.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6852 of 2020 and allied matters. Learned advocate Ms. Bhatt, has further submitted that the State filed an appeal against the said judgment and order being Letters Patent Appeal No. 724 of 2023 and allied matters, which were also dismissed by the judgment dated 11.08.2023. She has submitted that in fact, the Letters Patent Appeals were confined to the observations made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph No. 17, which relates to Clause 1 of the Circular dated 16.07.2019, whereas the rest of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 19.07.2022 were accepted.

7. Learned advocate Ms. Bhatt, has further submitted that the learned Single Judge has considered the very same judgment and ultimately, has issued directions in line of the judgment dated 19.07.2022. Thus, it is urged that the present appeal may not be entertained.

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Trivedi, has also submitted that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, more particularly in paragraph No. 11.2 of the impugned order, would in fact mean that the respondent-employees, who are working on part-time basis, are required to be continued till they reach the age of superannuation. He has submitted that till the status of the respondent-workmen remain as the part- timers, they cannot claim to be continued till they reach the age of superannuation.

9. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at length.

10. The captioned writ petition was filed by the respondent-employees claiming the following reliefs:

“35..... (A)