IMPORTANT POINT
Part-time employees cannot claim regularization or equal pay unless appointed against sanctioned posts, as per established legal precedents.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. The appeal is ADMITTED. Learned advocate Mr.Adeshra, appears and waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondents.

2. With the consent of both the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

3. The present Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, is directed against the order dated 13.10.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition, whereby the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the same by quashing and setting aside the order dated 24.04.2007 passed by the original respondent-authorities and has directed the appellants to hold the original petitioner No. 1 be entitled to Class-IV post on the date of his termination.

4. The facts recorded by the learned Single Judge, is that the Respondent No. 1 (original petitioner No. 1) was appointed as a ‘Part Time Sweeper-Safai Kamdar’ vide order dated 10.01.1994 passed by the Joint Industries Commissioner, Gandhinagar on fixed pay of Rs.600/- per month. However, later on, the wages were revised to Rs.900/- and were further revised to Rs.1350/- on 01.09.1998. The respondent No. 1 continuously worked for a period of 9 years and after ending of 9 years, he was terminated from the service. It appears that thereafter, the respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 4927 of 2001, which was disposed of vide order dated 28.12.2001 by the learned Single Judge by directing the State authorities to consider his case as per the Government Resolution dated 26.12.1980 and in light of the observations made by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 7156 of 1996 vide order dated 22.04.1999. Thereafter, the appellant-State authorities, more particularly, the Additional Industries Commissioner, Gandhinagar vide order dated 24.04.2007 rejected the case of the respondent No. 1 seeking regularization as well as reinstatement. The said order was challenged, after a period of 7 years by filing the captioned writ petition, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 13.10.2017, which is under challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, at the outset, has submitted that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as a part- time worker on fixed wages and hence, being a part-time worker, he is not entitled to claim regularization that too after his services was terminated. In support of her submissions, she has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of the State of Tamil Nadu Vs. A. Singamuthu, (2017) 4 SCC 113.

6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has also submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in error in directly ordering the respondent No. 1 to be entitled to the appointment on Class-IV post from the date of his termination, which is illegal and against the settled legal precedent. She has submitted that the State Government has not opted any policy, which entitles the part-time employees to be regularized in service. Thus, it is urged that the present Letters Patent Appeal may be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

7. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. J.A. Adeshra, appearing for the respondents has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference since the same is appropriately passed. He has read out the entire judgment and has submitted that 67 other employees, who are working in other departments of the State Government, have been regularized, which have also been recorded by the learned Single Judge while passing the order. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 was illegally terminated at the relevant point of time and hence, he is entitled to be reinstated in the Class- IV post from the date of his termination, as precisely done by the learned Single Judge.

8. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for