Gujarat High Court
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs Shantilal Muljibhai Valodara on 3 February, 2025
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1415/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1415 of 2019
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16165 of 2004
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.
Versus
SHANTILAL MULJIBHAI VALODARA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR PH PATHAK(665) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 03/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)
1. This appeal arises out of a judgement dated 28.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 16165 of 2004.
Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Tue Feb 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 04 22:13:22 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1415/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined
2. It appears that while issuing directions in the said petition, reliance is placed on an order passed in Special Civil Application No. 11490 of 2009 dated 13.12.2018.
We are informed by learned counsel Ms. Reena Kamani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. P.H. Pathak, learned advocate for the respondent that as far as Special Civil Application No. 11490 of 2009 is concerned, the appellant Corporation had preferred a Letters Patent Appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No. 800 of 2019. The said appeal was disposed of by a co-ordinate bench of this court on 16.07.2024. The judgement and order reads as under:
"1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition whereby, the appellant - Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is only directed to examine the case of the original petitioners
- respondents herein. Being aggrieved, the appellants - Corporation has filed the present appeal.
2. It is the case of the appellants that the learned Single Judge has erred in not considering the policy of the appellants - Corporation wherein, only those daily wagers, who have completed 900 days in five years as full time daily wagers as on 15.08.2004, are to be considered for regularisation. It appears that the learned Single Judge has also considered the order passed by the Supreme Court dated 25.11.2002 in Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Tue Feb 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 04 22:13:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1415/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined similarly situated employees part-timers/daily wagers and has allowed the writ petition. It is specifically contended that the part-timers are not entitled to any regularisation as per the policy of the Corporation.
3. Mr. P.C.Chaudhari, learned advocate appearing for the respondents has submitted at the outset that in fact, the learned Single Judge has only directed the Corporation to examine the case of the respondents as per the policy and hence, no prejudice is caused to the appellants - Corporation in examining the case as per the policy. It is submitted that similarly situated part- timers are regularised by the Corporation.
4. It is not in dispute and from the pleadings it is noticed by us that the respondents are working as part- time sweepers since the year 1986-87. The learned Single Judge has also noticed that the Supreme Court has categorically stated in the said order that the regularization of the employees may not be treated as precedent. After recording the submissions, and also the order passed by the Supreme Court dated 25.11.2002 in SLP (Civil) No.21241 of 2002, the learned Single Judge has issued the following directions:
"7.1 The petitioners shall make an appropriate representation in detailed pointing out the number of days for which they have continued to discharge the services in respective capacity within a period of 15 days from today;
7.2 Upon such receipt of application, the respondent Corporation shall examine the number of days which the petitioners have worked and if the petitioners are till date continued in the services they shall be regularised on fulfilling the qualification as required for seeking regularisation and accordingly the services of the petitioners shall be regularised moment they found to have Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Tue Feb 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 04 22:13:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1415/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined fulfilled the criteria of the policy as relied upon;
7.3 This exercise shall be undertaken by the respondent corporation within a period of three months from the date of representation along with writ of this Court as permanent full time employees with their respective dates and give consequential effect from the date of approaching this Court i.e. from the year 2009."
5. Thus, the learned Single Judge has only directed the appellants - Corporation to examine the number of days of each of the respondents and ultimately, if they fulfill the criteria of the policy, they may pass appropriate orders. We do not find that any prejudice is caused to the appellants - Corporation, if the case of each of the respondent-part-timers is examined as per their policy of regularization. There is no direction issued by the learned Single Judge to confer benefit of regularization to the Respondents, hence the Corporation can take appropriate decision after examining their case. 6. Hence, the present appeal is disposed of. As directed by the learned Single Judge, the exercise shall be undertaken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. Interim relief, granted earlier, stands vacated."
3. In light of the aforesaid order, for the reasons assigned in the said order, present appeal is also disposed of in the same terms.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) (D. M. DESAI, J) DIVYA Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Tue Feb 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 04 22:13:22 IST 2025