Gujarat High Court
Dharmesh Harshadbhai Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 4 February, 2021
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
C/SCA/2077/2021 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2077 of 2021
==========================================================
DHARMESH HARSHADBHAI DESAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. ARCHIT P JANI(7304) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5
MR AKASH CHHAYA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP(99) for
the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 04/02/2021
ORAL ORDER
Heard Mr. Archit P. Jani, learned advocate for the
petitioners.
Mr. Archit P. Jani, learned advocate submits that the
respondent bank is under direct administrative control of the
State Government and, therefore, it is a State within a
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In support
of his claim, he relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh State
Cooperative Land Development Bank v. Chandra Bhan
Dubey and others reported in (1999) 1 SCC 741 and
contends that present petitioners are clerks who were
recruited in the bank as back as in the year 2015 and if they
are treated as fix pay employees, in that case, they would be
governed by the regulations of the bank. Now, they are being
C/SCA/2077/2021 ORDER
treated as contractual employees and in that case, they would
not be governed by the regulations of the bank but would be
governed by the conditions of contract and, therefore, there is
a possibility that the respondent may terminate their services
at any time at the will of the respondent. He apprehends that
in view of this changed service conditions, the respondents
are likely to terminate services of the petitioners by way of
employing another contractual or ad-hoc employees and not
by way of employing permanent employees who may be
selected after following due process of law in any case.
Mr. Archit Jani, learned advocate also relies upon
interim order dated 22/11/2017 as well as final order dated
10/05/2019 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application
No.21017 of 2017 and presses for appropriate direction in line
with interim order dated 22/11/2017.
Mr. Akash Chhaya, learned Assistant Government
Pleader submits that entire petition is filed on assumption that
services of the petitioners would be terminated. He submits
that as such, no show cause notice or any communication is
ever issued to the petitioners that the petitioners would likely
to be terminated.
However, since Mr. Archit Jani, learned advocate
submits that now the bank is under administrative control of
the administrator and since earlier order directing the
petitioners to place them under the fix salary is unilaterally
changed by the administrator without there being any logic,
he apprehends that services of the petitioners would be
terminated by replacing them by another set of contractual or
C/SCA/2077/2021 ORDER
ad-hoc employees.
Accordingly, issue Notice to the respondents making it
returnable on 25/02/2021. In the meantime, the respondents
are directed that the petitioners shall not be replaced by
another contractual or ad-hoc employees and status quo with
regard to service conditions of the petitioners shall be
maintained till next date of hearing.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
ila
