IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8281 of 2015 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/- ==========================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No

1	Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?	No
2	To be referred to the Reporter or not ?	No
3	Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?	No
4	Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?	No

==========================================================

MUKUNDBHAI NANJIBHAI CHAVADA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR MURALI N DEVNANI(1863) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS NIRALI SARDA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.

PRACHCHHAK Date : 30/01/2024

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By way of present petition under Articles 14, 16, 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the inaction on the part of the respondent authority for not considering the case of the petitioner for extending the benefits of temporary establishment coupled with the benefits of the higher pay scale, which are flowing from the different resolutions and also for not considering the case of the petitioner for higher pay scale, after completion of 9-18-27 years.

2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:-

"20. (A) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

(B) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or a writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to grant the benefit of higher pay scale of 9-18-27 years along with arrears and Interest accrued thereon and be pleased to direct respondent authorities to grant benefit of temporary establishment on completion of his five years of service as a work charge employee and thereafter be pleased to direct respondent authorities to consider his case for regularization.

(C) Be pleased to quash and set aside the letters dated

11.9.2013 and 28.10.2014 issued by respondent authorities rejecting his claim.

(D) Be Pleased to direct respondent authorities to revise the pension of the petitioner accordingly.

(E) Pending admission, hearing and till final hearing of the present petition be pleased to direct the respondents to revive the pension of the petitioner and extend the same to the petitioner forthwith subject to outcome of the present petition.

(F) Any other and further relief/s as deemed just and proper looking to the facts of this case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice."

3. The facts giving rise to present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as temporary work charge Gujarati typist with the respondent from 4.7.1980 and retired w.e.f 31.3.2013. The appointment of the petitioner was following the due process of law. The appointment order of the petitioner itself makes it clear that the appointment of the petitioner was after calling for the names from the employment exchange. However the appointment of the petitioner was made as temporary workcharge Gujarati typist and as such he was treated as work charge employee. As far as the workcharge posts are concerned, the state Government through its P.W.D. department introduced the policy dated 16.08.1973 of conversion of workcharge posts into temporary establishments. The policy aimed at conversion of posts of workcharge establishment to temporary establishment which are continuously in existence for a minimum period of 5 years or very long term basis. The petitioner was appointed on 29.06.1980 and superannuated with effect from 31.03.2013. However in the entire service the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document