Gujarat High Court
District Development Officer vs Thakor Jitendrasinh Jaswantsinh on 9 February, 2021
Bench: Mr. Justice Nath, Ashutosh J. Shastri
C/LPA/216/2021 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 216 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15228 of 2012
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 216 of 2021
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 217 of 2021
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13519 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 217 of 2021
==========================================================
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
Versus
THAKOR JITENDRASINH JASWANTSINH
==========================================================
Appearance:
Letters Patent Appeal No.216 of 2021
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR RAMNANDAN SINGH(1126) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, AGP for the State respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No.217 of 2021
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR GM JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR VYOM SHAH for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,10,11,12,12.1,12.2,12.3,13,14,15,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR DHARMESH DEVNANI, AGP for the State respondents
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 09/02/2021
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH)
1. We have heard Shri H.S.Munshaw, learned counsel
for the appellants in both the appeals, Shri Gautam
Joshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vyom
C/LPA/216/2021 ORDER
Shah, learned counsel for the Caveators in Letters
Patent Appeal No.217 of 2021, Shri Ramnandan Singh,
learned counsel for the Caveator in Letters Patent
Appeal No.216 of 2021, Shri Dharmesh Devnani, learned
Assistant Government Pleader for the State
respondents in Letters Patent Appeal No.217 of 2021
and Ms.Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for the State respondents in Letters Patent
Appeal No.216 of 2021.
2. The learned Single Judge after examining the
material facts on record came to the conclusion that
the writ petitioner who was appointed in the early
nineties under an appointment order on a regular
scale continued to receive all the benefits
admissible to him including increments, Dearness
Allowances and all other benefits till 2012 when he
is said to have passed one examination, whereafter he
was given a contractual appointment of 5 years on a
fixed pay of Rs.4,500/. On such facts the learned
Single Judge vide judgment dated 05.12.2019 allowed
Special Civil Application No.15228 of 2012 and
granted him the benefits of past service from the
initial date of appointment treating him in
C/LPA/216/2021 ORDER
continuous service in terms of the judgment dated
10.08.2016 passed in Special Civil Application
No.6289 of 2011. The judgment in the case of Special
Civil Application No.6289 of 2011 related to District
Junagadh. The said judgment has since been accepted
by the Government and duly implemented.
3. Insofar as the other appeal is concerned that is
arising out of Special Civil Application No.13519 of
2011, again the learned Single Judge relied upon the
judgment dated 10.08.2016 in Special Civil
Application No.6289 of 2011 and extended the same
benefits to the writ petitioners therein. It is also
recorded by the learned Single Judge that the
Multupurpose Health Workers (Male) who are working in
Rajkot, Junagadh, Sabarkantha and Valsad have already
been extended the benefits and their services have
been regularized from the initial date of
appointment. As such, the present writ petitioners
belonging to District Kheda would also be entitled to
the same benefits. Apparently we do not find any
infirmity in the orders passed by the learned Single
Judge.
C/LPA/216/2021 ORDER
4. We may further note here the submission of Shri
Munshaw referring to two judgments of the Division
Bench dated 19.07.2016 in Letters Patent Appeal
No.507 of 2016 arising out of Special Civil
Application No.2344 of 2014 and the judgment dated
20.07.2010 in Letters Patent Appeal No.85 of 2010
arising out of Special Civil Application No.8611 of
2009, based upon which he submits that the
Multipurpose Health Workers (Male) were not extended
the benefits which have been given to the present
petitioners. We have perused both the judgments and
we find that they were based on different set of
facts and the initial appointment of those
Multipurpose Health Workers were contractual in
nature unlike the present petitioners who were given
regular appointment on fixed term and conditions.
5. Learned counsels for the respondents state that
they are entitled to the benefits of regularization
from 15.04.1995 and not from any earlier date because
they are working continuously from the said date and
prior to it in their appointments there were certain
breaks. This honest submission of the learned
counsels for the respondents is noted and the
C/LPA/216/2021 ORDER
appellants would implement the order of the learned
Single Judge accordingly.
6. It has also been pointed out by the learned
counsels for the respondents that the Division Bench
of this Court vide judgment dated 10.08.2017 passed
in Letters Patent Appeal No.1263 of 2016 arising out
of group of petitions led by Special Civil
Application No.11477 of 2015 dismissed the appeal of
the State against the judgment of the learned Single
Judge extending similar benefits as has been done in
the present case.
7. In view of the above, we do not find any merit
in these appeals and they are accordingly dismissed.
Consequently, the connected Civil Applications stand
disposed of.
(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)
(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
