Gujarat High Court
District Development Officer vs Giranjale Gulabbhai Bayajubhai on 17 January, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5460/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5460 of
2024
In F/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 31424 of 2024
With
F/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 31424 of 2024
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 842 of 2023
==========================================================
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
Versus
GIRANJALE GULABBHAI BAYAJUBHAI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS HETAL PATEL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HEMANG M SHAH(5399) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 17/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. The Review Application is delayed by 159 days, for which, no plausible explanation has been furnished. Only explanation given for the delay in filing the Review Application is that the Special Leave Petition was filed by the State Government, wherein, vide order dated 09.08.2024, the Hon'ble Apex Court permitted the State Government to withdraw the Special Leave Petition with a liberty to file a review before the High Court.
Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Wed Jan 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 01:11:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5460/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2025 undefined
2. On merits of the Review Application, when we have required the learned counsel for the review applicant to address the grounds seeking for review, it is submitted that the period of engagement of the original petitioners has been given in a statement appended as Annexure-B to the Review Application. A perusal of paragraph 2.3 and paragraph 2.11 of the Review Application indicates that vague assertions have been made by the learned counsel for the review applicant in the said paragraphs with regard to working of the original petitioners. However, it is pertinent to note that a statement has been made in paragraph 2.3 that all the respondents herein were appointed on contract basis for a period of 11 months between the year 2003-2011.
3. From the said statement, it is evident that all the respondents herein/original petitioners had continued in employment between the year 2003-2011 for eight years with artificial gaps in their contractual appointment. The continuous service of eight years was rendered by the original petitioners during their contractual appointment followed by a further period of five years in fixed pay which was also completed by them before they were granted regular pay scale in terms of the Government Resolution dated 16.02.2006.
4. The statement made in the Review Application further records that the Panchayat, Rural Housing and Rural Development Department, vide notification dated 15.06.2011, notified the Multi- purpose Health Workers (Male) Class-III (Panchayat Service) Recruitment Rules, 2011 in order to provide regular recruitment to the post of Multi-purpose Health Worker (Male) in the superior Panchayat service, Class-III, direct recruitment, with a view to bring Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Wed Jan 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 01:11:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5460/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2025 undefined an end to all contractual appointments for the post of Multi-purpose Health Worker.
5. It is also an admitted fact of the matter that all the original petitioners/respondents herein, who were initially appointed on contractual basis for a period of eight years and worked continuously for the said period with artificial breaks between the year 2003-2011, had participated in the direct recruitment exercise conducted pursuant to the Recruitment Rules, 2011 and they were granted appointment on a fixed pay for five years after selection which they had completed successfully till the year 2017 before they were absorbed in the regular pay scale.
6. The insistence of the learned counsel for the review applicant is that with the absorption of the original petitioners in the year 2017 on the regular post in terms of the Government Resolution dated 16.02.2006 and providing them the regular pay scale after direct recruitment, they cannot be granted the benefit of continuity of service since the inception of their appointment. The submission is that the benefit of the contractual service, which was with artificial breaks, cannot be granted to the original petitioners and their appointments on regular basis is to be considered from the date of their regularization/absorption in the regular pay scale.
7. The submission is found wholly misconceived, for the simple reason that there is no dispute about the facts of the present case that all the original petitioners/respondents herein were initially engaged on contractual basis in the year 2003 and while continuing on the substantive post of Multi-purpose Health Worker (Male) Class-III (Panchayat Service), they have undergone the selection process and have been selected to the said post in terms of the Recruitment Rules, 2011.
Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Wed Jan 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 01:11:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5460/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2025 undefined
8. This is the reason which we have already expressed in the judgment and order dated 23.04.2024 while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal upholding the judgment and order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge.
9. No error much less error apparent on the face of the record could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the review applicant. Moreover, rehearing within the scope of review is not permitted. No good ground has been made out for review of the aforesaid judgment. The Review Application is accordingly, dismissed, both on the grounds of delay as well as on merits.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) cmk Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Wed Jan 29 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 01:11:03 IST 2025