IMPORTANT POINT
Reinstatement of a worker inherently includes continuity of service, entitling them to benefits from the initial date of joining.

JUDGMENT :

Nirzar S. Desai, J.

1. Since, the issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 15.09.2022, rendered in Special Civil Application No.10343 of 2020, with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, this matter is taken-up for final hearing and disposal, today.

2. Rule. Learned AGP waives service for the Respondents.

3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the orders dated 07.11.2012 and 31.01.2022 to the extent they do not grant the benefit of GR dated 17.10.1988, with effect from 01.10.1988 and to direct the Respondents to grant the benefits with effect from 01.10.1988 notionally upto 12.01.2007 (With Revision of Pay) with a further prayer to direct the respondents to give difference of salary from 13.01.2007 to 29.06.2019 (With Revision of Pay).

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as a daily wager with the Respondents since 1976 and his services came to be terminated with effect from 01.01.1988. The petitioner challenged the same by way of Reference (LCS) No. 83 of 2001, wherein, the concerned Labour Court passed the award dated 12.01.2007 and granted reinstatement to the petitioner, without expressly stating that it was with continuity of service.

4.1 Pursuant thereto, the petitioner came to be reinstated in service on 06.10.2008. However, by an order dated 07.11.2012, the petitioner was ordered to be treated as a fresh appointee with effect from 29.08.2007 and thereby, the past service rendered by the petitioner, during the period from 1996 to 2007, was not taken into consideration, at the time of his retirement in the year 2018.

Hence, the present petition.

5. Learned AGP, Mr. Udhwani, vehemently opposed this petition by pointing out from the record that the petitioner’s appointment was treated as fresh and he was given fresh appointment vide order dated 07.11.2012 and that after the delay of about 10 years, i.e. in the year 2022, the aforesaid order is sought to be challenged by the petitioner by way of the present petition and therefore, on the ground of delay, itself, this Court may not entertain this petition and may dismiss the same.

6. At this stage, learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, appearing for the petitioner pointed out that in the case of similarly situated person, who happened to be the co-worker of the present petitioner, namely Champaben Ukabhai Parmar, had preferred Special Civil Application No. 10343 of 2020, wherein, the aspect of delay was considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, when the same was canvassed by the Respondent- State, and after taking into consideration the same, the Coordinate Bench allowed the said petition vide order dated 15.09.2022 and issued certain directions in favour of the co-worker of the petitioner, therein. It was, therefore, prayed that the present petitioner also being the similarly situated person, he may also be granted the reliefs on the similar line.

7. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the material on record, so also the decision of the Coordinate Bench dated 15.09.2022, rendered in Special Civil Application No. 10343 of 2020, and this Court finds that the co-worker of the present petitioner, namely Champaben Ukabhai Parmar, was one of the litigants, along with other co-workers, including the present petitioner, who had preferred Reference (LCS) No. 83 of 2001 in the wake of termination of their services, which was partly allowed by the concerned Labour Court and the directions were issued to re-instate the workers on their original post, but, without back-wages.

7.1 Thus, when the Coordinate Bench of this Court has already taken into consideration the aspect of delay, while deciding Special Civil Application No. 10343 of 2020 and has granted certain reliefs, the case of the present petitioner is also required to be considered on the similar line.

7.2 At this stage, it would be beneficial to refer to the o