Bhagirathsinh Bharatsinh Rana vs Shri M.K.Jadav Or His Successor In ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4776 Guj

         C/MCA/524/2020                                    ORDER




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


             R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 524 of 2020
           In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1306 of 2016


==========================================================
               BHAGIRATHSINH BHARATSINH RANA
                            Versus
  SHRI M.K.JADAV OR HIS SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE THE SECRETARY
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MUKESH T MISHRA(5900) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MAITHILI MEHTA, AGP for the Opponent-State.
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
        and
        HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                            Date : 26/03/2021

                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI)

We have heard Mr. Mukesh T. Mishra, learned advocate for the applicant and Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned AGP for the opponent-State.

This appears to be a gross case where not only there is a detailed judgment by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 19157 of 2015 and allied matters but also the fact that when it has been travelled before the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1306 of 2016 and allied matters whereby the Division Bench has allowed the main appeal by giving following directions:

"7. It is not disputed that so far as the order dated 31st July, 2015 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 2796 of 2015 is concerned, in the said petition, the respondents-petitioners have succeeded before the Labour Court by obtaining directions not only for

C/MCA/524/2020 ORDER

reinstatement but there was also specific direction to extend the benefit of continuity of service. So far as the award obtained by the respondents-petitioners in the present matters is concerned, there was merely a direction for reinstatement without back wages and there was no specific direction to extend the benefit of continuity of service. In that view of the matter, while we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge, issue direction to consider the claim of the petitioners for extension of benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988, at the same time, they are not on par with the original petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 2796 of 2015 and no decision need be taken in the present matters keeping in mind the order dated 31st July, 2015 passed in the said petition. At the same time, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents, we are of the view that as the respondents- original petitioners were not in service for the period from 1.4.2003 to 7.5.2007, we clarify that they are not entitled for any such benefit of continuity of service for extending the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988. Subject to the above modification, we allow these appeals in part and confirm the rest of the order of the learned single Judge. The order of the learned single Judge shall stand modified to the extent indicated above.

8. Since the main appeals are allowed, the connected Civil Applications do not survive and the same are accordingly disposed of."

The modification of the order in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1306 of 2016 has been preferred which came to be decided on 05.07.2019 where the Court had issued the following directions:

"4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in fact the clarification is required to be made so as to save the applicant's service benefits, which were otherwise eligible, admissible and payable on account of labour Court's order and the order of the learned Single Judge, as this Court has only modified the order of learned Single Judge and therefore, partly allowed the appeal whereby the period from 1st April 2003 to 7th May 2007 was clipped and not for any other matter and therefore, earlier services and subsequent services cannot be rendered useless or negatory on account of the observations.

C/MCA/524/2020 ORDER

5. We are of the view that looking to the observations of this Court in para6 of the order and reading the same in juxtaposition with the final portion of the order i.e. paras 7 and 8, we are of the view that the period from 1st April 2003 to 7th May 2007 was not to be treated for any purpose, but on that count the rest of the period cannot be affected and hence we are of the view that the order dated 29th November 2016 needs to be viewed and construed not granting the benefit of G. R. dated 17th October 1988 for the period from 1st April 2003 to 7th May 2007. Barring the period, if the benefit is admissible and permissible in law, then the same has to be viewed accordingly and it may not be denied only on account of passing of this order. The application is disposed of."

It appears that there is no challenge to the said order. It is required to be noted that the Letters Patent Appeal No. 768 of 2016 arising from Special Civil Application No. 2723 of 2018 was filed before this Court whereby attention of this Court has been drawn to the fact that those who have been appointed after 17.10.1988 as daily wagers or work-charged employees have been held entitled to the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 as the benefits flowing from various pay commission including 6th pay commission.

We have heard the learned advocates on both the sides. The affidavit-in-reply filed by the opponent is nothing but reiteration of the contentions of what was argued before the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. The opponent ought to have been more careful in placing the affidavit-in- reply before this Court by way of various submissions in the substantive petition which essentially not only being dealt with by the concerned court but it is held against the opponent.

Let the compliance be made on or before 16th April, 2021, else the opponent shall remain present before this

C/MCA/524/2020 ORDER

Court. It is given to understand that no challenge has been made to the order of modification passed by the LPA Bench.

Let the matter be posted for hearing on 16th April, 2021.

(SONIA GOKANI, J)

(GITA GOPI,J) A.M.A. SAIYED