Gujarat High Court
Khata Madhubhai Jivabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 12 February, 2025
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/430/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 430 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12730 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 430 of 2023
================================================================
KHATA MADHUBHAI JIVABHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SR COUNSEL assisted by MS VISHWA SHAH for M/S.
NANAVATI ASSOCIATES(1375) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR AAKASH CHHAYA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 12/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)
1. Heard Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Vishwa Shah for M/s. Nanavati Associates for the appellant and Mr. Aakash Chhaya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent - State at length. Though served, none appeared for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the record.
Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Feb 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 22:22:39 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/430/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2025 undefined
2. The challenge in this appeal is to the oral judgment dated 1.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.12730 of 2019. The petitioner before the learned Single Judge who is the appellant before us, had filed a petition praying for a direction that the State Authorities ought to regularize the services of the petitioner and also pay minimum of pay scale. The case of the petitioner was that he was serving as a Daily Wager Peon in the Legal Department of Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar and was working in a Liaison Office of the High Court of Gujarat, Sola, Ahmedabad. The order sheet of the Letters Patent Appeal indicates that appeal was ordered to be heard with Letters Patent Appeal No.561 of 2021.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aakash Chhaya for the respondent - State has placed reliance upon decision dated 11.12.2023 of Letters Patent Appeal No.569 of 2021 by which all the Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Feb 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 22:22:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/430/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2025 undefined appeals including Letters Patent Appeal No.561 of 2021 were disposed of. Admittedly, the present appellant's appeal ought to have been heard with a group of appeals disposed of by Division Bench of this Court. We note that the Division Bench disposed of the group of appeals with the following directions.
"6. Admittedly, the prayer was for regularisation of the petitioners by pressing the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra). It was a relief claimed for in clause (F) of the relief paragraph in the petition. While declining the said relief, learned Single Judge, as quoted above, viewed that "the reliefs claimed in clause (F) seeking regularization is nothing but parity with regularly selected Class IV employees".
6.1 This Court is not accepting the above proposition of law inasmuch as the relief of regularisation on one hand and the relief of payment of minimum pay-scale to any employee are two distinct reliefs. It could not be said that the relief of regularisation is nothing but parity with regularly selected Class IV employees. Relief of regularisation is a higher relief.
6.2 The petitioners have claimed the relief, which resulted into grant of lesser relief by learned Single Judge of payment of minimum of wages. It is Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Feb 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 22:22:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/430/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2025 undefined this grievance, which has brought the petitioners before this Court by way of this group of Letters Patent Appeals.
6.3 Therefore, as would be noticed, it is the above reasoning, which has resulted into denial of relief of regularisation to the petitioners.
6.4 As the said reasoning, to be stated at the cost of repetition that learned Single Judge perceived the relief of regularisation to be at par with the relief of grant of minimum pay-scale, would not hold good. It is held that the aforesaid reasoning is not correct and shall be reexamined by learned Single Judge by rendering the decision afresh.
6.5 In order to enable learned Single Judge to decide afresh, on the limited ground as above, the judgment of learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside and learned Single Judge is directed to decide the aspect of said relief afresh and render decision thereon as expeditiously as possible.
6.6 It is clarified that this Court has not gone into any other aspect except the above limited reasoning to hereby direct to remit the case to learned Single Judge for decision afresh.
6.7 All the contentions for both the sides including those raised herein, including the acquiescence and refutation thereof, are kept open to Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Feb 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 22:22:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/430/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2025 undefined raised to be decided in accordance with law.
7. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent."
4. In light of this, the appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms in light of the directions issued in Letters Patent Appeal No.569 of 2021 and allied matters vide order dated 11.12.2023.
5. The petition is restored to the file of the learned Single Judge to be heard on merits.
6. Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would also submit that post the decision of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi reported in 2006(4) SCC, 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo V. Union of India and others decided on 20.12.2024 in SLP (C) No.5580 of 2024 has observed that the judgment of Uma Devi (Supra) though sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries, it is regrettable that its principles Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Feb 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 22:22:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/430/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2025 undefined are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that in engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee's morale.
7. In light of this, while taking into consideration the prayer of regularization, the learned Single Judge may consider the decision of Jaggo (Supra).
8. In view of above, the oral judgment dated 1.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.12730 of 2019 is quashed and set aside.
9. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms. No Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Feb 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 22:22:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/430/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2025 undefined order as to costs.
10. In view of the disposal of the main appeal, Civil Application will also not survive and hence the same also stands disposed of.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) (D. M. DESAI,J) vk Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Feb 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 13 22:22:39 IST 2025