Patel Nirmeshkumar Arvindbhai vs State Of Gujarat
2022 Latest Caselaw 4927 Guj

     C/SCA/4892/2020                               JUDGMENT DATED: 07/06/2022




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4892 of 2020


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

==========================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                       PATEL NIRMESHKUMAR ARVINDBHAI
                                    Versus
                              STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS VIDHI J BHATT(6155) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. UTKARSH SHARMA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for
the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                               Date : 07/06/2022

                              ORAL JUDGMENT

1 Rule returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned advocates

appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final

C/SCA/4892/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/06/2022

hearing today. Mr.Sharma, learned AGP, waives service of rule on behalf

of respondent No.1 & 2, Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate, waives

service of rule on behalf of respondent No.3 and 4.

2 In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the

petitioner has prayed for a direction that the orders rejecting the

representation of the petitioner be set aside and the petitioner's initial date

of appointment be considered as 10.09.2012 instead of 24.01.2014.

3 The facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner was appointed

as a Multi Purpose Health Worker by an order dated 10.09.2012. The

appointment was for a period of five years on fixed pay of Rs.5,300/-

where the condition was that on completion of five years of service from

10.09.2012 he would be absorbed on regular basis to which some some of

the reserved category candidates on being aggrieved by they being not

considered in open category had preferred Special Civil Application No.

12905 of 2012. Based on this petition, apprehending that the petitioner

will be dislodged from his service, he filed Special Civil Application No.

16609 of 2012. On 21.12.2012, this Court, specifically while adjudicating

the issue, in para 14 of the order granted status quo. Para 14 of the order

dated 21.12.2012 reads as under:

"14. Before parting with this order, it is appropriate to direct all

C/SCA/4892/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/06/2022

the concerned to maintain status-quo as on date in respecdt of the candidates, who were appointed and the candidates in whose favour the appointment orders are issued and the candidates who are at present serving. In short status quo be maintained by all District health Officers, who are functioning under the instructions of GPSSB. The GPSSB is hereby directed to issue a specific direction in terms of aforesaid directions to all the District Health Officers asking them to maintain status quo. S.O to 28 th January, 2013."

4 It appears that the status quo was thereafter continued from time to

time despite which it is the stand of the respondents that since the

petitioner was thereafter appointed on contractual basis from 01.07.2013,

there was no reason for the respondents to continue the petitioner in

service. For the purposes of granting the benefit of regularization on

completion of five years, the relevant date as per the stand of the

respondents as the initial date of appointment is 24.01.2014. The group of

petitions, including that of the petitioner, namely, Special Civil

Application No. 16609 of 2012 were disposed of by this Court by an

order dated 23.12.2013. In Special Civil Application No. 10493 of 2013,

the Court while issuing notice had granted direction that the service

condition of the petitioner shall not be altered which relief continued even

when the petitions were disposed of by an order dated 23.12.2013.

5 Ms.Vidhi Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, would further

submit that the stand of the respondents that the date of initial

C/SCA/4892/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/06/2022

appointment is 24.01.2014 is incorrect. Even in case of similarly situated

employee who was granted protection, the initial date of appointment is

taken as 10.09.2012. She would rely on an order of similarly situated

employee at page 91 of the petition. She would also rely on the tabular

chart annexed together with the order of appointment at page 93 where

the similarly situated employee Brijrajsingh Manharsinh Gohil has been

given the benefit of appointment on regular basis on completion of five

years of service counting 2012 as the order of appointment.

6 Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned counsel for the respondent, extensively

relied on an affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Chief District

Welfare Officer, Panchmahals, district : Godhra.

6.1 Mr.Munshaw, learned advocate, would submit relying on para 6 of

the reply that the services of the petitioner were terminated and they were

then issued orders of fixed remuneration at Rs.2,500/-. Relieving orders

were passed on 01.07.2013 and time bound conditional appointment

order was issued. The respondents were not aware of the status quo order

granted by this Court on 01.07.2013. He would, therefore, submit that the

benefit of regular pay scale of Rs.19,900-63,200/- can be granted only on

completion of five years from the year 2014. Extensive reliance is placed

on orders at Annexure-'E' & 'F' to the reply.

       C/SCA/4892/2020                             JUDGMENT DATED: 07/06/2022



7        Considering the arguments made by the learned counsels for the

respective parties, and perusal of the orders passed by this Court from

time to time, it would indicate that initially when the petitioner

approached this Court on 21.12.2012, as is evident from para 14 of the

order reproduced hereinabove, the respondents were restrained from

altering the service conditions of the petitioner. A specific direction was

issued to the concerned District Health Officers. Subsequently, when the

representations were rejected and on a petition being filed, namely,

Special Civil Application No. 10493 of 2013, on 01.07.2013 status quo

order was passed which continued even when the petitions were disposed

of by the order dated 23.12.2013.

7.1 Except for one of the petitioners, namely, one Dharmendrakumar

Purshottambhai Patel, where it was specifically pointed out that nothing

was brought on record to suggest that the petitioner was not entitled to the

benefit of continuance of status quo, even for the period in question

which is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent from the

extract of the pass books annexed to the petition at annexure -'O', it is

evident that the petitioner was paid the fixed pay of Rs.5,200 during the

period in dispute. There is no reason therefore not to accept the prayer of

the petitioner that the initial appointment be treated as 10.09.2012 instead

of 24.01.2014.

         C/SCA/4892/2020                               JUDGMENT DATED: 07/06/2022



8          The petition is allowed, accordingly. The respondent authorities are

directed to consider the service of the petitioner from the date of his

initial appointment i.e. 10.09.2012 and absorb him in the regular set-up

on completion of five years of service from the said date. Needless to say

that it will include all consequential benefits pursuant to the initial date of

appointment being taken as 10.09.2012. Rule is made absolute to the

above extent. Direct service is permitted.

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) Bimal