Navsari Agricultural University vs Navinchandra Dahyabhai Lad
2021 Latest Caselaw 307 Guj

          C/LPA/9/2021                                    ORDER



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 9 of 2021
                              In
          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3397 of 2014
===========================================================
              NAVSARI AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
                            Versus
                NAVINCHANDRA DAHYABHAI LAD
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RONAK D CHAUHAN(7709) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR VM DHOTRE(1089) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MAYUR V DHOTARE(7019) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
 CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM
         NATH
         and
         HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
                      Date : 11/01/2021
                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH)

Heard Mr. D. G. Chauhan, learned counsel for Mr. Ronak Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. V. M. Dhotre, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No.1 and Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State - respondent No.2.

2. This is an intra court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the Navsari Agricultural University - A State University, assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 25.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in four writ petitions, whereby the writ petitions were allowed and the private respondents - original petitioners were extended the benefit of regularization from the date on which they completed their probation period as per the resolution of the University itself dated 12.05.2005.

C/LPA/9/2021 ORDER

3. The facts in brief are that the original writ petitioners were appointed some time in 1992 as Lab Assistant, Mali, Gardener and other such positions on fixed pay of Rs.600/­ on probation period of two years. However, they were not given regular pay­scale upon completion of the probation period. Later on, the University vide circular dated 20.01.2001 ordered to pay minimum wages to the writ petitioners. Thereafter, the University recommended on 17.03.2005 for grant of regular pay­scale. Finally, the Board of the Managing Committee of the University passed a resolution dated 12.05.2005 recommending the case of the petitioners for grant of regular pay­scale from the date of completion of probation period. This resolution of the University was forwarded to the State Government for its approval. The State Government vide its government resolution dated 03.06.2009 although granted some benefits to the writ petitioners, but it applied its resolution dated 16.02.2006 and accordingly, from 03.06.2009, the writ petitioners would be on fixed pay for five years at Rs.1500/­ per month and after completion of five years, they would be given regular pay­scale of Rs.2550­3200/­ and that they would be covered by new pension policy. It was this government resolution dated 03.06.2009 which was assailed by the writ petitioners in four writ petitions. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions, set aside condition Nos.1 to 3 of government resolution dated 03.06.2009 and issued directions to the respondents to confer the benefits of regular pay­scale to the petitioners as per the resolution of the University dated 12.05.2005. It further directed the respondents to fix retiral benefits and accordingly extended the benefit of regular pay­ scale from the date of completion of two years' probation period and all consequential benefits and arrears to be paid. For the said purpose, eight weeks' time was also granted.

4. Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant University has sought to contend that at the best, the learned Single Judge ought to have extended the benefit from the date of the judgment and not from

C/LPA/9/2021 ORDER

the date on which the probation period of two years was to be completed.

5. In our considered opinion, the University ought not to have preferred this appeal. It was University's resolution under which the Court upheld. If at all, any grievance could be alleged, it would be at the ends of the of State and not at the ends of the University. These employees have worked with the University without any complaints and they have been regularly continued right from 1992 on fixed wages of Rs.600/­ per month after due selection which itself was exploitation by the University for so many years. When the original appointment of all the petitioners clearly provided that they were on probation for two years, the University ought to have thereafter proceeded either to confirm their service or to terminate their service. But, the University continued to take their service.

6. We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal lacks merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)

(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)

cmk