Gujarat High Court
Surekhaben Zinabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 12 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12908/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12908 of 2017
==========================================================
SUREKHABEN ZINABHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HJ DHOLAKIA(5862) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JAY TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 12/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed for the following reliefs:
"27(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus by holding that the selection of the petitioner to the respective posts was a regular selection, after following the regular process of selection and that they are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of the appointment and that the services cannot be terminated in any manner contrary to one by which services of a permanent employee can be terminated and further be pleased to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date of their appointment and further be pleased to give all consequential benefits, monitory and non-monitory inclusive of the full back wages.Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:50:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12908/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent not to terminate the service of the present petitioner, on the ground of completion of their three years contract, by maintaining the status quo and further be pleased to grant the regular pay scale or at least may be given as per the Government Resolution dated 16/11/2010. (D) xxxxx"
2. The petitioner, by way of this petition, is challenging the action of the respondents authorities who, rather than, treating their service as a regular one from the date of their appointment, the service of the petitioner may come to an end on the ground of the completion of three years contract. That though the petitioner is appointed after following the prescribed regular process of selection by competitive method and also petitioner has gone through various trainings from time to time, for their respective posts.
3. In the petition itself, it is stated that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the termination order dated 11.6.2014 passed by the respondent, some of the employees have preferred Special Civil Application No.10346 of 2014, 10670 of 2014, 6017 of 2015, 11828 of 2016 and 16446 of 2016 wherein this Court has granted status quo qua those employees. This petition is filed on the Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:50:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12908/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined apprehension that the present petitioner's contract will also come to an end after completion of three years term.
4. At the time of issuing Rule vide order dated 12.7.2017, the coordinate Bench of this Court had granted interim relief in terms of paragraph 27(C).
5. Before initiation of the arguments, learned advocates for the parties have submitted that Special Civil Application No.10346 of 2014, 10670 of 2014, 6017 of 2015, 11828 of 2016 and 16446 of 2016 on which the petitioner has placed reliance in the petition itself, have been dismissed by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.2.2025. Relevant paragraphs nos.16 to 19 of the said order are reproduced as under:
"16. In light of the aforesaid discussion and the position of law, as referred above, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioners herein are appointed by Government Resolution dated 16.11.2010 under the "Mission Mangalam" Scheme. The petitioners herein are governed by the human resources manual approved by the Board of GLPC Chapter-3 page-36. The eligibility criteria of each of the position is prescribed by the respondent No.2 GLPC wherein even the retired person is eligible to apply. Evaluation of the petitioners is undertaken Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:50:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12908/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined by external expert and the petitioners herein are not governed by the Gujarat Civil Services Rules, 1971 which are statutory rules governing the employees in the government service. The communication dated 11.6.2014 impugned herein not being an order of termination of the services of the petitioners, the prayer (C) as such would not survive.
17. No legal right accrues in favour of the petitioners herein to be granted the regular pay-scale of a regularly appointed employee in the facts of the present case. The prayer to regularize the services of the petitioners fail in light of the aforesaid observations.
18. In the opinion of this Court, having considered the prayers as prayed for in the present petition, the petitioners herein are entitled to emoluments against the post as stated in para-4 of the Government Resolution dated 16.11.2010.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion and observations, no case is made out to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The present petitions stand dismissed."
6. Against the said order, Letters Patent Appeals were filed and they are disposed of by common judgment Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:50:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12908/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined dated 24.3.2025 with the following observations:
"17. It is also an admitted fact that none of the respondent authorities made any attempt to assail the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petitions. No applications were filed seeking permission from the learned Single Judge to discontinue the present appellants from the services on the ground of unsatisfactory performance of their duties even after the engagement of outsourcing agencies. No material pointing out the assessment of duties/work performance, as stipulated in the appointment orders of each of the appellants has been pointed-out to this Court. Since, we are not inclined to reverse the findings of the learned Single Judge disallowing the prayers of regularization or regular pay scale at par with the Government Employees, and since the submissions before us are only confined with regard to their continuation in service, and also in wake of the fact they have continued for all these years under the interim orders, we direct the respondent no.2 - company to assess the performance of each of the appellants and in case their work performance is found satisfactory, as per the clause of their appointment orders, the company may continue them in service as per their requirement. We also clarify that the appellants shall not claim any right of regularization or regular pay scale, since their pay or salary is governed by the norms of the respondent no.2 - company only. In case the respondent no.2, Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:50:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12908/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined after fair assessment of the appellants' service, is of the opinion that they are required to be continued in service, the appellants and the respondent no.2 shall enter into a contract, as per the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 16th November, 2010.
18. With these observations the present appeals are disposed of.
19. After, the order was dictated, Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate has urged that the respondent no.2 may not terminate their services. It goes without saying that the assessment of the satisfactory work performance of the present appellants can only be undertaken when they are in service and there can be no question of terminating their services before such assessment is undertaken by the respondent no.2. The Respondent no.2 shall undertake and complete the exercise of assessment of satisfactory performance of the appellants within a period of three weeks."
7. The said decision of the Letters Patent Appeals was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9757-9771/2025, which were dismissed vide order dated 7.4.2025.
8. In view of the above, as the petitioner is similarly Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:50:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12908/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined situated and the same facts are involved in this petition, this petition is also disposed of in view of the above paragraphs of the Letters Patent Appeal mentioned hereinabove.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) SRILATHA Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:50:29 IST 2025