Ninama Rameshbhai Narsingbhai vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 12889 Guj

     C/SCA/2405/2018                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2021




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2405 of 2018
                              With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FIXING DATE OF EARLY HEARING) NO. 1 of 2021
         In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2405 of 2018

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

=====================================-===========================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

================================================================
               NINAMA RAMESHBHAI NARSINGBHAI & 4 other(s)
                                Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR CHIRAG B PATEL(3679) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR KURVEN DESAI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
================================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

                                 Date : 31/08/2021

                                 ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.B.S.Patel assisted by learned advocate Mr.Chirag B. Patel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Kurven Desai for the

C/SCA/2405/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2021

respondents.

Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Kurven Desai waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.

1. By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :

"(A) Your Lordships will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to process the proposal at Annexure-G collectively to the petition in pursuance of the letter at Annexure-A to the petition and confer the benefits as prayed by the petitioners;

(B) Your Lordships will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the direction issued by respondent No.1 at Annexure-B to the petition qua the petitioners;

(C) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships will be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from putting an end to the services of the petitioners by any method till the final disposal of the present petition;

(D) Be pleased to award the cost of this petition;

(E) Such other and further relief that is just, fit and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted."

2.1. At the outset, learned senior advocate Mr.Patel for the petitioners submitted that the present petitioners are identically situated to that of the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.12537 of 2011 which was allowed by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohinder Pal as his Lordships was then) by order dated

C/SCA/2405/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2021

25.07.2018 in case of Gujarat State Karmachari Sankalan Samiti V/s. State of Gujarat. It was further submitted by learned senior advocate Mr.Patel that the judgment rendered in Special Civil Application No.12537 of 2011 was challenged in Letters Patent Appeal No.1327 of 2019 which was also dismissed by order dated 16.10.2019. It was also pointed out that against the order passed in the Letters Patent Appeal the respondent-State Government preferred Special Leave Petition No.5663 of 2020 before the Supreme Court which was also dismissed by order dated 26.10.2020 confirming the order passed in Letters Patent Appeal as well as the judgment dated 25.07.2018 rendered in Special Civil Application No.12527 of 2011.

2.2. It was pointed out that the State Government by order dated 19.07.2021 has passed the order accepting the judgment and order in Special Civil Application No.12537 of 2011 in case of 322 employees by regularizing their services on various conditions mentioned in the said order dated 19.07.2021.

2.3. It was therefore submitted that the respondents be directed to pass similar order as it was passed in case of 322 employees in case of the petitioners also on same terms and conditions.

C/SCA/2405/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2021

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Desai appearing for the respondents could not controvert the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners.

4. In view of the above, it would be necessary to refer to the findings given by this Court in judgment and order dated 25.07.2018 in Special Civil Application No.12537 of 2011 which is confirmed in the Letters Patent Appeal as well as by the Apex Court by dismissing the Special Leave Petition as under :

"6. This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides. The fact that the petitioners are appointed by the District Panchayats and are considered as employees of Panchayat Department are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that State has recognized their services from the date of initial appointment. These petitioners are working as Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) and were getting fixed remuneration of Rs.2500/- which was the minimum wages at the relevant time. From the aforementioned reply, it is apparent that increase in the minimum wages was recommended from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.9,400/-. Case of the petitioners was sent to the Finance Department to take a decision for increasing remuneration of the petitioners. It is unfortunate that in place of granting the minimum wages to the petitioners, the respondents-State Government has taken a decision to relieve the petitioners working on contractual basis. Accordingly, despite this petition was pending in the Court, the respondents vide their letter dated 5.1.2018, terminated the services of the petitioners.

7. It is admitted that initially, petitioners were given contractual appointment for 11 months and thereafter, they have been continued for all these years. Some of these petitioners have joined way back in the year 2004 and 2005 and working on fixed remuneration of Rs.2500/-. The main ground of the respondents in denying the regular appointment to the petitioners and terminating their services is that initial appointment was on

C/SCA/2405/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2021

contractual basis.

8. This Court is of the considered opinion that such stand of the State Government in terminating the services of the petitioners, despite the fact that, petition of similarly situated other petitioners was allowed way back in the year 2011 and 2016. In these proceedings, respondents were party and decision was in the knowledge of the respondents. Case of the petitioners for increasing of remuneration from Rs.2500/- to Rs.9400/- was forwarded by Health and Family Welfare Department for consideration to the Finance Department. Finance Department in place of taking decision in favour of the employees have passed an order vide which the District Panchayats have been directed to terminate the services of the petitioners who have been working for considerable long time.

9. While disposing of Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011, this Court has held as under:

25. It may be true that in the case of District Rajkot, similarly situated MPHW(M) have been regularized by the concerned District Panchayat. However, it is obvious that in the case of Sabarkantha District Panchayat, the services of MPHW (M), who are identically situated to the petitioners, have been regularized, with restrospective effect, by the State Government, itself. The State Government has taken a policy decision in this regard, confined only to the MPHW (M) of Sabarkantha District. Why all similarly situated MPHW (M) in other Districts of the State have not been covered under a uniform policy, is certainly baffling. Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) such as petitioners, who were appointed on adhoc basis but have been denied the fruits of regular appointment only because the regular selection process was not fhled until they had crossed the permissible age-limit, from a distinct class of employees. Different categories in a single class cannot be carved out by taking piecemeal decisions benefiting only a section of such employees. This would mount to sub-classification that would not be permissible in law, as there is no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by onfirming the decision only to MPHW (M) in Rajkot and Sabarkantha districts. They, therefore, cannot be accorded discriminatory treatment. The respondent authorities are not only trying to take advantage of the situation but are also trying to put the blame on each other which cannot be permitted, to the

C/SCA/2405/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2021

detriment of the petitioners.

10. From the aforementioned judgment, it is clear that Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) who have worked continuously for so many years cannot be discriminated by taking one excuse or the other. There is no rationale in discriminating the present petitioners by treating them as employees on contractual basis when initial contract for which they were appointed is over after 11 months and thereafter, without any break, they are continued for all these years. This is particularly so, when clear cut finding has been recorded by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011 and respondents were party in these proceedings.

11. As a result of aforementioned discussion, termination order dated 6.1.2018 is quashed and set aside and this petition is allowed in the same terms as Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011 decided on 10th August, 016. Petitioners will be regularized in the same manner from the same date as in the aforementioned oral order. Rule is made absolute."

5. The petition is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to pass similar order as to that of the order dated 19.07.2021 regularizing the services of the petitioners on the same terms and conditions as stipulated in the said order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

6. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.

(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) PALAK BRAHMBHATT