Rekhaben Kanaiyalal Raval vs Surendranagar Dudhraj Nagar ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8110 Guj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 8110 Guj
Judgement Date : 19 September, 2022

Gujarat High Court

Rekhaben Kanaiyalal Raval vs Surendranagar Dudhraj Nagar ... on 19 September, 2022

Bench: Biren Vaishnav

     C/SCA/1899/2020                            ORDER DATED: 19/09/2022




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1899 of 2020

================================================================
                     REKHABEN KANAIYALAL RAVAL
                               Versus
                SURENDRANAGAR DUDHRAJ NAGAR PALIKA
================================================================
Appearance:
MR CHANDRESH N JANI(7846) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MS SUSHMA M JANI(7841) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR PREMAL R JOSHI(1327) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                            Date : 19/09/2022

                             ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioners

and Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent

No.1 - Nagarpalika.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents be

directed to pay difference of minimum wages from the date

of order and judgment passed by this Court in Special Civil

Application No.12831 of 2004 till they have resumed their

duties.

C/SCA/1899/2020 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2022

3. Mr. Mishra would rely on the directions issued by this

Court in Special Civil Application No.12799 of 2004 dated

04.07.2017, especially, paragraph No.43 thereof.

4. On the last date, this Court, on 17.06.2022 passed the

following order:

"Heard Mr. U.T. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent no. 1 Nagarpalika.

Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioners states that the respondent Nagarpalika has not complied with the directions given by this court in Special Civil Application No. 12799 of 2004 on 04.07.2017 inasmuch as minimum wages from the date as stated in para 43 of the decision dated 04.07.2017 till the date of their superannuation have not been paid. Mr.

C/SCA/1899/2020 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2022

Joshi, learned advocate for the Nagarpalika states that the amount as directed in the order dated 04.07.2017 has been paid.

A reply may be filed showing the computation of amount that is paid to the petitioners. List on 19.07.2022."

5. The affidavit-in-reply filed by the Nagarpalika indicates

that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in Special

Civil Application No.9315 of 2018 dated 25.06.2018, the

case of the petitioners for minimum wages was rejected on

the ground that they were working on part time basis.

Reading of the reply indicates as under:

"6. I state and submit that pursuant to the direction passed by the Honorable Court dated 25.6.2018 in SCA No.9315/2018, the Municipality vide communication dated 14.12.2018 rejected the application of the petitioners for minimum wages since the petitioners were working on part-time basis.

C/SCA/1899/2020 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2022

7. I state and submit that as per the GR dated 21.2.2014 and 6.9.2014, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.1,57,300/-. The aforesaid amount has already been paid to the petitioners.

8. I state and submit that the municipality vide letter dated 9.1.2020 informed the petitioners that the Municipality time and again ask them to resume the work. In spite of that the petitioners have refrain from resuming the work. The petitioners were informed to work from 2-30 to 6-10 pm."

6. Mr. U. T. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners

would vehemently dispute this proposition by relying on a

statement of due wages given in the rejoinder in paragraph

No.7.

7. Chronology of the facts would indicate that the

petitioners had filed Special Civil Application No.17299 of

2004 and allied matters praying that they be allowed to

C/SCA/1899/2020 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2022

resume their duties and be paid regular salaries, as they

were working on part time basis for several years.

8. After considering the arguments and contentions

raised by the respective parties, the Court while issuing final

directions in paragraph No.43 of the decision dated

04.07.2017 in Special Civil Application No.12799 of 2004

opined as under:

"43. For above mentioned reasons, the responsibility and obligation to pay salary to the petitioners for the period from 01.05.2003 until the date on which the petitioners reached respective age of superannuation is of respondent No.2 - Nagarpalika."

9. The issue therefore is whether, the petitioners in fact

resumed their duties post the orders of 2018. As pointed out

by Mr. U. T. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, the

petitioners had asserted their claim for being reinstated vide

C/SCA/1899/2020 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2022

orders dated 09.01.2020 which is disputed by the

respondent - Nagarpalika by stating that several letters were

written by them informing the petitioners to resume their

duties be stated not. Essentially, therefore, it is the question

which cannot be entertained into a writ preferred under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On this count alone,

the petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.