Kamleshbhai Lakshmanbhai ... vs The State Of Gujarat
2022 Latest Caselaw 2678 Guj

    C/SCA/10398/2020                               JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2022



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10398 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 ?

==========================================================
                   KAMLESHBHAI LAKSHMANBHAI CHAUHAN
                                 Versus
                     THE STATE OF GUJARAT & 4 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS.SHIKHA PANCHAL, ADVOCATE for ADITI S RAOL(8128) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.KURVEN DESAI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                               Date : 09/03/2022

                               ORAL JUDGMENT

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Kurven Desai

learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on

behalf of the respondent State.

C/SCA/10398/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2022

2. With the consent of learned advocates for the

respective parties, the petition is taken up for final

hearing.

3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for

setting aside the inaction of the respondents in not

permitting him to join duty and in extending the

benefits of circular dated 16.07.2019.

4. The facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner

was engaged as a part-time Safai Kamdar in the year

1997. He was terminated on 24.07.2006. However,

due to the availability of work, his services were

extended by an order dated 21.04.2007. By an order

dated 27.03.2012, in view of the resolution dated

25.04.2012, his services were terminated. He

therefore has come before this Court requesting that

the benefits that were extended to the petitioners of

Special Civil Application No.7462 of 2012 be

extended to the petitioner.

C/SCA/10398/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2022

5. Ms.Panchal learned counsel for the petitioner would

rely on the observations of this Court in Special Civil

Application No.7462 of 2012. Para 32 of the same

reads as under:

"32. As mentioned above, some of the petitioners are out of service after coming into force the Resolution of the State Government dated 31.5.2012. These petitioners were working along with their other counter part prior to 31.5.2012. Since number of Class IV employees of the State got affected because of the Resolution dated 31.5.2012, all the affected persons could not obtain the stay from the courts against their termination. There is no denning fact that all these petitioners are affected by the Resolutions of the State Government dated 25.4.2012 and 31.5.2012. They are to be treated at par with the employees who were lucky to get the stay against their termination from the courts. Accordingly, the relief granted by this Court in this judgment shall be extended to all the employees who are affected by the Resolutions of the State Government whether they are continued as outsource employees or are terminated in view of these resolutions."

6. Mr.Kurven Desai learned AGP for the State would

rely on the affidavit in reply filed in the petition and

submit that there is a delay of almost 9 years in

filing the petition as the termination is of the year

2012. He would further submit that the order of

C/SCA/10398/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2022

termination is pursuant to the Government

Resolution dated 01.04.2010. The benefits of the

resolution dated 16.07.2019 are not available to the

petitioner in view of his services being terminated.

7. Perusal of the resolution dated 01.04.2010 would

indicate that the services are essentially sought to

be terminated on the ground that the services in

which the petitioner was engaged was to be

outsourced. The spirit of the resolution would

indicate that the termination was on the ground of

part timer's services were to be outsourced.

Essentially resolution dated 25.04.2012 was a

subject matter of challenge in Special Civil

Application No.7462 of 2012 and allied matter in

which the Court observed as above quoted para 32.

8. Obviously therefore even though the petitioner was

not a beneficiary of the order of stay of this Court,

he is entitled to be extended the same relief. The

aspect of delay of nine years can be taken care of by

denying the petitioner the consequential benefits

C/SCA/10398/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2022

which were granted to the petitioners of Special

Civil Application No.7462 of 2012.

9. Accordingly the petition is allowed The respondents

are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service

within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt

of copy of this order on the same terms and

conditions on which he was initially engaged. From

the date of his reinstatement, the petitioner shall be

granted the benefits of resolution dated 16.07.2019.

Such a computation of benefits pursuant to the

resolution and payment shall be made to the

petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the

date of reinstatement.

10. The petition is allowed in the above terms. Rule is

made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) ANKIT SHAH