Gujarat High Court
Sureshbhai Shanabhai Parekh vs State Of Gujarat on 29 January, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17458/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17458 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
=====================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
=====================================================
SURESHBHAI SHANABHAI PAREKH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SANJAY UDHWANI ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR UM SHASTRI(830) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 29/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave with learned advocate Mr. Hem D. Dave appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Sanjay Udhwani appearing for the respondent No.1 - State and learned advocate Mr. U. M. Shastri appearing for the respondents No.2 Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 04:31:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17458/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined and 3.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to hold that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and has further prayed for a direction to treat the petitioner a permanent employee after completion of ten years of service from his date of joining and to hold that the petitioner is eligible to get all benefits of permanent employee including regular pay scale from the date on which the petitioner completed ten years of services. The petitioner has also prayed for benefit of regular pay scale and to pay the difference of salary.
3. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter was taken up finally. Hence, RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Sanjay Udhwani waives the service of rule on behalf of the respondent - State and learned advocate Mr. U. M. Shastri Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 04:31:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17458/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined waives the service of notice on behalf of the respondents No.2 and 3.
4. Brief facts of the case are as under :-
4.1 That the petitioner was appointed as a daily wager on 28.1.2001 on the post of driver in Taluka Panchayat Godhra and in the general meeting dated 28.9.2007 held by District Panchayat Godhra Panchmahal at Godhra vide resolution No.77, recommendation was made to appropriate authority to permit the Panchayat to regularize the services of the petitioner on permanent basis.
4.2 Pursuant to the resolution passed by District Panchayat, the District Panchayat Service Selection Committee Panchmahal passed another resolution for regularization of the present petitioner as per Rule 20(3) of Gujarat Panchayat Service Classification and Recruitment Rules, 1988. Vide letter dated 26.9.2011, the District Panchayat requested the concerned Deputy Secretary to pass a resolution to Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 04:31:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17458/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined regularize the drivers on permanent basis. 4.3 Another such recommendation was made on 30.4.2013, though the recommendation was made to regularize the services of the petitioner, the respondent Panchayat vide order dated 11.7.2013 terminated the services of the petitioner.
Hence, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 13133 of 2013 for quashing and setting aside the order of termination dated 11.7.2023.
4.4 The aforesaid petition was disposed of vide order dated 1.10.2013 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the petitioner was directed to make a representation to the respondent authorities and the respondents were directed to consider the same. Accordingly, the petitioner made the representation and petitioner's representation was considered positively and the respondents took a stand that the petitioner services are not dismissed but he was relieved.
Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 04:31:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17458/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined 4.5 Thereafter though petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.2376 of 2014 before this Court praying for regularization of service as well as challenging the termination, subsequently, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute by filing Reference (T) No. 1 of 2015 before labour Court at Godhra who vide its award dated 23.10.2019 directed the respondents to reinstate the services of the petitioner with 50% back wages and continuity in service.
4.6 The respondents challenged the order dated 23.10.2019 passed by labour Court Godhra in Reference No.1 of 2015 before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 23013 of 2019 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29.9.2020 and when the aforesaid order dated 29.9.2020 became subject matter of challenge by way of Letters Patent Appeal No. 339 of 2020, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal vide order Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 04:31:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17458/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined dated 20.7.2020.
4.7 Thereafter, the petitioner was compelled to file contempt proceedings, his services was reinstated which would indicate that the petitioners services were reinstated with continuity of service.
4.8 While dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the State Government, the Division Bench of this Court had observed in paragraph No.6.2 that the case of the petitioner is required to be considered in light of the fact that he is the senior most driver of the District and in view of the fact that he has completed more than ten years of service, his case could not be overlooked.
4.9 It is in this background that the petition is filed. After the petitioner was reinstated, the petitioner's petition seeking regularization being Special Civil Application No.2376 of 2014 which was pending before the Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 04:31:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17458/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined Court, came up for hearing on 16.6.2022 and the Co-ordinate Bench directed the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner and to decide the same in accordance with law.
4.10 Despite the aforesaid order dated 16.6.2022 it seems that the said representation is yet not decided and that is how the present petition is preferred by the petitioner seeking the relief which is already stated in foregoing paragraphs.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioners services were terminated in the year 2013 upon approaching the labour Court, the petitioner succeeded in the proceedings before the labour Court and the labour Court not only quashed the order of termination but granted reinstatement with continuity of service to the petitioner.
Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 04:31:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17458/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined 5.1 Despite the fact that the respondent carried the aforesaid order up to Division Bench of this Court, the respondents failed. On the contrary the Division Bench of this Court observed in paragraph No.6.2 and directed the respondent to consider his case for his entitlement to be continued as senior most driver and about applicability of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 by making observations in paragraph No. 6.2 of Letters Patent Appeal No. 339 of 2020 which was decided vide order dated 20.7.2020.
5.2 Learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave than relied upon decision of this Court in case of District Rural Development Agency and others versus Kanabhai Khumabhai Bariya in Special Civil Application No. 13798 of 2018 and allied matters dated 20.06.2019 and by relying upon paragraph No. 12 of the said decision submitted that in similar set of facts, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that the concerned Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 04:31:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17458/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined workman shall be entitled and eligible for all consequential benefits and arrears as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 5.3 Learned advocate Dipak Dave submitted that the aforesaid decision was carried in appeal by the respondents by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.734 of 2021 and even the appeal also was dismissed by Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench while making observations in paragraph No.6 dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the respondents.
5.4 Learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave pointed out that in paragraph No.6 of the decision, the Division Bench of this Court considered the fact that law with regard to Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is no more resintegra and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in catena of decisions reiterated the same and ultimately, the appeal was dismissed.
Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 04:31:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17458/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined 5.5 Accordingly, learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave submitted that as the facts of the present petition cannot be distinguished from the facts of the decisions relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave and in view of the settled legal preposition, the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and all other consequential benefits be extended to the petitioner also by issuing appropriate direction to the respondent authorities.
6. Learned advocate Mr. U. M. Shastri appearing for the respondent though vehemently opposed the petition could not dispute the fact that the petitioner is serving with the Panchayat since 2001 and even while his services were terminated and when the said action was challenged by the workman, the labour Court passed an order reinstating his service with continuity of service and the aforesaid order has been confirmed up to Division Bench of this Court.
7. It is also an undisputed fact as nothing Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 04:31:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17458/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined contrary could be pointed out by learned advocate Mr. U. M. Shastri appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that the present petitioner is in service since 2001 and therefore by virtue of the order passed by labour Court, he is in continuous service since last more than twenty years and therefore, though opposed, the petition prayed for passing appropriate order.
7.1 I have heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the record. Upon perusal of record, I found that it is undisputed fact that the petitioner is in service since 2001 and though there was a break in service for few years by virtue of award of the labour Court in Reference (T) No.1 of 2015 dated 23.10.2019, the petitioner was reinstated in the services and his services were directed to be treated as continuous service and the aforesaid order was confirmed up to the Division Bench of this Court.
Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 04:31:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17458/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined 7.2 I have also considered the fact that upon reinstatement, when the petitioner approached this Court for regularization, while disposing of the petition, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed the petitioner to make a representation for the same and till date the representation has remained undecided. 7.3 When the law in respect of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is very clear by way of catena of decisions and when nothing contrary could be pointed out by learned advocate Mr. U. M. Shastri to indicate that the petitioner is not in continuous services since last more than ten years, there is no question that the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 can be denied to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled to benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and all consequential benefits flowing from the same, the same may be counted by treating the petitioner in service since 2001 Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 04:31:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17458/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined from his date of joining and accordingly, the respondents are directed to carry out necessary exercise by revised pay fixations and other consequential actions be taken by the respondents as early as possible. 7.4 As the petitioner is held entitled to the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and all consequential benefits, the respondents are directed to do the needful and to ensure that the petitioner gets all the benefits flowing from the aforesaid Government Resolution as early as possible but in any case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition stands allowed. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) Pallavi Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 04:31:29 IST 2025