Gujarat High Court
Nisarmiya Imammiya Gori vs State Of Gujarat on 22 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7177 of 2016
==========================================================
NISARMIYA IMAMMIYA GORI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HEM DAVE for MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner
MR PARTH PATEL, AGP for the Respondents
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 22/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner with the following main prayers.
" 7. For the reasons stated herein above and such other as may be advanced at the time of hearing of this petition, the petitioner above named most respectfully prays that :-
(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
(i) to direct the respondents to grant benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner and the petitioner be treated as permanent employee after completion of 10 years Page 1 of 17 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:08:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined of service and be given all the benefits of permanent employee including regular pay-scale on the date the petitioner completed his 10 years of service;
(ii) to direct respondents to extend all the benefits of regular post with regular pay-scale in favour of the petitioner from the date he completed 10 years of service;
(iii) to direct respondents to pay difference of salary to the petitioner after placing the petitioner in pay-scale after completion of 10 years of service;
(iv) to direct respondents to pay salary to the petitioner after the date of award, i.e. 14.09.2010, till the date of actual reinstatement, i.e. 11.05.2015 by treating the petitioner as continuous in service from 1997 and accordingly, placing the petitioner in the pay-scale as per G.R. dated 17.10.1988;
(B) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately place the petitioner in regular pay-scale as per Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988; "
Page 2 of 17 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:08:56 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined
2. Heard learned advocates.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Dave for the petitioner has submitted that the Government is bound by its own policy when G.R. dated 17.10.1988 has been made applicable to respondents No.1 and 2, there is no reason for respondents to deprive the petitioner of the said benefits; and that the petitioner is not even paid minimum wages whereas his juniors are drawing pay-scale; and that the petitioner, who has put in continuous service from 1997 till date, could not have been continued as daily wager by respondents; and that the action of the respondents in continuing the petitioner as daily wager for all these years is clearly violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner; and that many juniors to the petitioner have been given benefit of pay-scale by virtue of G.R. dated 17.10.1988; and that the persons who have entered into service of respondents No.1 and 2 as daily wagers even after petitioner's date of entry, i.e. after 1997, have been conferred said benefit whereas petitioner has been discriminated without any reason; and that admittedly, the G.R. dated 17.10.1988 is applicable to respondent -
Department, respondent Nos.1 and 2 ought to have conferred benefits of the said G.R. to the petitioner. He has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court Page 3 of 17 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:08:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined recorded on Letter Patent Appeal No.326 of 2025 dated 21.02.2025. He has submitted that this petition may be allowed.
4. Per contra, learned AGP Mr.Patel for the State authorities has vehemently opposed this petition. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent authorities and has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a daily wager driver only for 6 hours; and that the benefits of the G.R. dated 17.10.1988 cannot be given to the petitioner because as per the said G.R., the attendance, muster role are required to count his attndance and as per required attendance in G.R. dated 17.10.1988, the petitioner has to fulfill his total day of work and total year; and that the petitioner was only appointed for 6 hours, therefore, no muster role is required for the petitioner, because the G.R. dated 17.10.1988 is for a daily wager who are working for whole day and there must be completion of 240 days of five years in his service; and that the petitioner has not shown any record or any proof that the was working for whole day and worked for minimum 240 days for five years; and that the petitioner has not fulfilled the criteria of 240 days and five years as mentioned in the G.R. dated 17.10.1988; and that there is no record produced by the petitioner that the benefits under the Page 4 of 17 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:08:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined G.R. dated 17.10.1988 have been extended to the similarly situated daily wagers. It is submitted that this petition may be dismissed.
5.1 I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have perused the material available on record. From the record, it transpires that, the petitioner is in service of respondent No.2 since 1997 as daily wager clerk, till date he has not been conferred benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The petitioner was illegally terminated by the respondents authorities on 14.08.2002. Therefore, he has raised industrial dispute before the appropriate authority, which, in turn, culminated into Reference proceedings i.e. Reference (LCG) No.8 of 2004 before the concerned Labour Court, wherein the learned Labour Court has granted reinstatement to the petitioner, with continuity of service and with 10% back wages vide award dated 14.09.2010 and thereby quashed and set aside the action of terminating the service of the petitioner illegal.
5.2 Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Labour Court, the State Authorities have approached this Court by filing a petition being Special Civil Application No.18344 of 2011, which was dismissed for non-prosecution Page 5 of 17 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:08:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined vide order dated 23.12.2011. After a lapse of about 871 days, an application for restoration being MCA (Stamp) No.1651 of 2014 was filed, along with an application for condonation of delay being Civil Application No.9858 of 2014. In the said application for condonation of delay, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed that application with the following observations on 17.09.2014, which are as under.
"22. Even after having succeeded in the reference proceeding before the learned Labour Court, the concerned workman is, for last 4 years, deprived of the fruits of legal proceeding in the Labour Court. The applicant - petitioner State has without any justification, not implemented and flouted the award passed by the learned Labour Court and without any order of stay against the operation of the award, the applicant - petitioner State has deprived the concerned workman of the result of the award.
23. Even in such case, the applicant - petitioner State did not take care to attend the proceeding of the petition, as a result of which the petition came to be dismissed for non- prosecution.
24. Actually, the concerned officer responsible for implementing award should be called upon to Page 6 of 17 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:08:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined explain why the award has not been implemented though it is not interfered with and/or its operation is not stayed and he shou8ld also be asked to explain why the proceedings were neglected. This order shall be placed before the Collector for appropriate action.
25. In this view of the factual background, when the so-called reasons and circumstances mentioned by the applicant - petitioner State in present application are taken into account, then it would emerge that the applicant - petitioner State has failed to offer satisfactory explanation and has failed to make out sufficient cause to condone such inordinate delay of 871 days.
26. Furthermore, the applicant - petitioner State has not cared to implement the award passed by the learned Labour Court, though any relief, by way of any order against implementation and operation of the award, is not passed by the Court.
27. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the application does not deserve to be entertained.
28. The applicant, who has not implemented the award passed by the Court and has disregarded the same, does not deserve any relief, Page 7 of 17 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:08:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined more so when any explanation for delay is not offered and sufficient cause to condone delay is not made out. The application fails and is accordingly rejected."
5.3 Being aggrieved, the State Authorities have preferred an appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No.27 of 2015 along with Civil Application for stay) No.343 of 2015 before the Division Bench of this Court, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the said appeal vide order dated 19.01.2015, by observing as under.
"5. It is borne out that the appellant State had been very casual in complying with the orders of the Courts below. The respondent workman was deprived of the award passed by the Labour Court for a considerable period. Even the writ petition was dismissed for non- prosecution at the end of the appellant State. The learned Single Judge has taken note of such callous attitude by the State. We are in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge. The appeal lacks merit and therefore is accordingly dismissed. Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly."
5.4 Against which, the State Authorities have not Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:08:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined preferred any appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court, as reported.
5.5 In view of above, it transpires that the award passed by the learned Labour Court dated 14.09.2010 has attained finality and the award of reinstatement with continuity and with 10% backwages was starring against the State Authorities. Therefore, the petitioner was reinstated in service by the authorities on 11.05.2015 as daily wager with last drawn wage of Rs.1,035/-.
5.6 These are the undisputed facts and it is a matter of record.
5.7 This Court finds that since the learned Labour Court has granted continuity of service, the petitioner should be treated as continue in service and therefore, as such, he has put in all about 18 years of service with the respondents authorities. At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.326 of 2025 dated 21.02.2025, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has observed as under.
"7. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. The learned Page 9 of 17 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:08:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined Single Judge has confirmed the award dated 08.09.2021 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference (IT) No.101 of 2016, directing the appellants to extend the benefits arising from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It is not in dispute and settled legal precedent that an employee, who has been engaged on a daily-wage basis, and who has completed 5-10-15 years of service, is extended the benefit of such resolution, which provides for regular pay-scale. This resolution has been subject matter of various litigations and ultimately, the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat And Ors. Vs. PWD Employees Union and Ors. [(2013) 12 SCC 417], has clarified that the daily- wagers, who have worked in various departments are also entitled to the benefits of regular pay scale and thereafter, pension, as declared by the State Government in such Government Resolution.
8. In the present case, we have noticed that another colleague or co-employee of the present respondent-workman viz. Bariya Kanabhai Khumabhai, has already been extended the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and the award extending such benefits has been confirmed by this Court.
9. In the present case, the respondent- workman has served for more than 30 years with Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:08:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined the appellant. In the case of Shripal (supra), the appellant-workman was labeled as casual employee and was not regularized and the Supreme Court in case of such employees has held thus:
"17. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Section 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period.
10. In the case of Jaggo; Anita & Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court, while considering the issue of regularization of employees, who are Page 11 of 17 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:08:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined labeled as part-timers and contractual, has directed the employer to regularize their services by holding thus:
"25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short- term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long- term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary"
Labels: Employees engaged for
work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination:
Temporary employees are
Page 12 of 17
Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:08:56 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression:
Temporary employees often find
themselves excluded from
opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a
Sheid: Institutions increasingly
resort to outsourcing roles
performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another.
This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
Page 13 of 17 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:08:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined • Denial of Basic Rights and
Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being Page 14 of 17 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:08:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities.
Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. 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 morale. By ensuring fair employment Page 15 of 17 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:08:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country."
11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid facts and law enunciated by the Supreme Court, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment dated 30.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition. The present appeal fails. The same is dismissed.
12. The benefits arising from the award and as confirmed by the learned Single Judge shall be paid within a period of eight weeks from today."
5.8 In view of the undisputed facts, submissions canvassed and observations made by the Division Bench of this Court noted above as well as the demeanor of the respondents authorities, this petition needs to be considered.
6. For the reasons recorded above, the following order Page 16 of 17 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:08:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined is passed.
6.1 This petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
6.2 The respondents are directed to extend the benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner considering his continuous service from the year 1997, within a period of eight weeks from today.
6.3 The respondents are further directed to pay difference of salary, if any, as well as backwages, as directed by the learned Labour Court vide award dated 14.09.2010, if not paid, to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from today.
Direct service is permitted.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) M.H. DAVE Page 17 of 17 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:08:56 IST 2025