Gujarat High Court
Haresh Bijalbhai Sondharva vs State Of Gujarat on 5 October, 2021
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/12584/2018 ORDER DATED: 05/10/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12584 of 2018
=====================================================
HARESH BIJALBHAI SONDHARVA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR. JAINISH P SHAH(7033) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. JIGNA B SUCHAK(7004) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PREMAL R JOSHI(1327) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 05/10/2021
ORAL ORDER
1) The present writ petition has been filed for the following
relief:
"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue
a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the
nature of mandamus and/or any other
appropriate writ, direction or order directing
the respondent authorities to grant the
petitioner the benefits under Government
Resolution No.WCE/1588/(5)/(2)/Ga dated
17/10/1988 issued by the respondent No.1.
(B) Pending admission, hearing and final
disposal of the case Your Lordships may be
pleased to direct the respondent authorities to
grant the minimum wages to the petitioner
amounting to Rs.305.60 per day or any
amount as per law till the final disposal of
this case."
2) Learned advocate Mr.Jainish P. Shah appearing for the
petitioner has asserted that the petitioner is a daily wager and he is
used to work for six hours. However, the said statement is disputed
by the learned advocate Mr. Joshi by saying that the petitioner is a
part timer and he has placed reliance on the order dated
C/SCA/12584/2018 ORDER DATED: 05/10/2021
01.04.2016 passed by the Executive Engineer. He has submitted
that since the petitioner is a part timer, he is not entitled for the
benefits arising out of the resolution dated 17.10.1988.
3) In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.
Premal Shah appearing for the respondent No.2 has submitted that
there are wage-slips, on which, the present petitioner is relying
upon.
4) This Court has perused the order dated 01.05.2017 passed by
Deputy Executive Engineer, appointing the present petitioner,
wherein it is specifically stated that the petitioner is a part timer
and he is engaged for six hours basis.
5) Under the circumstances, since there is a disputed question of
fact, the Court cannot examine the same in a writ proceedings with
regard to the status of the petitioner.
6) The Supreme Court, in the case of the State of Gujarat & Ors.
v. PWD & Forest Employees Union, 2019 (9) Scale 642 as well as in
the case of the State of Gujarat & Ors. v. PWD & Forest Employees
Union, reported in 2013(12) SCC 417 has specifically stated that the
entire scheme of Government Resolution dated 17.101988 is meant
for the daily wagers, who have completed 5, 10 and 15 years of
service.
7) Thus, the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 does not
apply to the part timers but the scheme is applicable to the daily-
wagers and they are conferred the benefits as per the resolution
dated 17.10.1988. This Court, in the catena of judgments, after the
judgment of the Supreme Court, has further stated that over and
above the benefits, which are available to the daily-wagers of
Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, they are also entitled to
C/SCA/12584/2018 ORDER DATED: 05/10/2021
the benefits of Dearness Allowance, HRA, higher pay scale etc.
8) Thus, it is a well settled proposition of law that the benefits
flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is only
applicable to the daily-wagers and not for the part timers.
9) Since the status of the petitioner is disputed, it will be
appropriate for him to raise an industrial dispute establishing his
status as a daily-wager.
10) In this view of the matter, the present writ petition fails.
Notice is discharged.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
VISHAL MISHRA
