Gujarat High Court
Mohanbhai Kantibhai Parmar ... vs State Of Gujarat on 6 August, 2021
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/862/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/08/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 862 of 2021
====================================================
MOHANBHAI KANTIBHAI PARMAR (BARIA)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
====================================================
Appearance:
MS ASHLESHA M PATEL(6127) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. DHARMESH DEVNANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 06/08/2021
ORAL ORDER
1) At the outset learned advocate Ms.Ashlesha Patel appearing for the
petitioner has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the
judgments of this Court. She has placed reliance on the judgment dated
21.12.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7462 of 2012 and
allied matters and on the common order of the Division Bench of this
Court dated 09.05.2019 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1155 of 2019
and allied matters.
2) Learned advocate Ms. Patel has submitted that the petitioner was
appointed vide order dated 01.08.2005, as a water boy. She has submitted
that the petitioner, till today, is serving on the said post. It is further
submitted that the service of the petitioner was also outsourced in the year
2011 in view of the Government Resolution dated 10.02.2006. She has
submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the minimum pay
scale as per aforesaid judgments of this Court.
3) Learned AGP Mr.Dharmesh Devnani appearing for the respondent-
State has submitted that the case of the petitioner is required to be
examined in light of the aforesaid judgments, as it appears that the service
C/SCA/862/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/08/2021
of the petitioner was also through outsourcing in the year 2011 and with
regard to the continuity of the service of the petitioner is required to be
examined by the State Government and hence, appropriate order may be
passed.
4) It appears that vide order dated 01.08.2005, the petitioner was
appointed as a water boy and as per the statement made in the petitioner,
he is still continued as on today. It is also revealed that in the year 2011,
in view of the Government Resolution dated 10.02.2006, the job of the
petitioner was outsourced. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide
judgment dated 21.12.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7462
of 2012 and allied matters, while examining the issue with regard to the
grant of minimum pay-scale in light of the Government Resolution dated
10.02.2006, after threadbare examination and by a comprehensive
judgment, has directed the State Government to give minimum pay-scale
to such employees, who are completed more than 10 years of services.
The aforesaid judgment was confirmed by the Division Bench vide
common order dated 09.05.2019 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.
1155 of 2019 and allied matters. The Division Bench has specifically
observed that so far as the prayer of regularization is concerned, such
employees would not be entitled to the same, however, they are doing the
work of regular employee then as per the principle of equal pay for equal
work, they are entitled to minimum pay-scale as enunciated by the
Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh reported in
(2017) 1 SCC 148 . It appears that thereafter, the State Government,
while implementing the direction of this Court, has issued Government
Resolution dated 16.07.2019. By the said resolution it was held that the
part-time employees, who are working as on 01.1.2012 would be entitled
to fix pay of Rs.14,800/-, as per the pay-scale prescribed to the Class-IV
C/SCA/862/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/08/2021
employees. It is further stated that the employees, who are terminated are
to be reinstated in service.
5) Learned AGP has submitted that for extending the aforesaid
benefits, the service of the petitioners are required to be verified by the
concerned department and a proposal has to be sent to the respondent-
Finance Department, as per the scheme of the resolution and accordingly,
if it is found that the petitioners are entitled, such benefits will be
extended.
6) The Coordinate Bench of this Court has specifically observed that
in fact the entire policy of outsourcing, which was introduced with
resolutions dated 10.02.2006 and 25.04.2012, was held to be illegal.
Thus, after the judgments rendered by this Court, it is not open for the
State Authorities to engage any employees by way of outsourcing and
even if they are engaged, they would be entitled for the wages, as
provided under the resolution dated 16.07.2019.
7) In the considered opinion of this Court, the present group of writ
petitions can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Finance
Department to examine the cases of the present petitioners with regard to
extending the benefits of the resolution dated 16.07.2019. The
respondent-Finance Department is directed to call for necessary details of
all the petitioners from the concerned departments within a period of
three weeks from the date of receipt of the present order. The concerned
departments are also directed to cooperate and forward the details of the
present petitioners to the Finance Department expeditiously within a
period of two weeks thereafter. The Finance Department is further
directed to examine each case of the petitioners with regard to their
service conditions and if they are found eligible as per the judgment dated
C/SCA/862/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/08/2021
21.12.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No.7462 of 2012 and
allied matters and order dated 09.05.2019 passed in Letters Patent Appeal
No.1555 of 2019 and as per the resolution dated 16.07.2019, such
benefits shall be extended to them. The Finance Department is directed to
pass appropriate orders after receipt of the details of the petitioners within
a period of four weeks. It is clarified that the Finance Department, while
examining each of the case of the petitioner, shall specifically keep in
mind that the entire policy of outsourcing introduced vide Resolutions
dated 10.02.2006 and 25.04.2012 has been declared illegal. It is declared
by this Court in the aforementioned decisions that all such employees,
who are terminated or affected due to the said policy, are to be reinstated
and conferred the benefit of minimum pay. Thus, the only factor, which
requires to be examined in the case of the petitioners is that whether the
policy of outsourcing is/was detrimental to their service conditions,
including their termination or non-conferring of minimum pay.
8) It is clarified that if any adverse decision is taken against the
present petitioners, it shall be communicated to them and it would be
open for the petitioners to revive the present writ petitions by filing a
simple note before the Registry.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
VISHAL MISHRA
