Gujarat High Court
Lagdhir Mansibhai Karia vs Jamkhambhaliya Nagar Palika on 1 May, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6388/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6388 of 2016
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9431 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
LAGDHIR MANSIBHAI KARIA & ORS.
Versus
JAMKHAMBHALIYA NAGAR PALIKA & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR TR MISHRA(483) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,2,3,4,5
MR MEET THAKKAR AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
HARSHESH R KAKKAD(7813) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR RC KAKKAD(389) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 01/05/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6388/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2024
undefined
1. Present petitions are filed by the respective petitioners
under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the
following reliefs;
"(A) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue and order,
direction and/or writ in the nature of mandamus
and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction,
directing the respondents to immediately treat the
petitioners as permanent regular employees w.e.f. 9-
5-2013 in compliance with the Municipal Resolution
dated 28-9-2012 and be pleased to direct the
respondent to pay the arrears with 12% interest
thereon;
(B) That Your Lordships be further pleased to quash and
set aside the Advertisement marked ANN.C and
quashed and set aside the conditions laid down in the
letter dated 17-4-2013, being illegal, arbitrary, against
the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal which has
attained finality;
(C) Pending admission and final hearing of this petition,
Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondents to
start paying regular salary in the time-scale of pay
forthwith;
(D) Any other and such further relief as the Hon'ble court
deems fit and proper in the interest of justice;"
2. As both the petitions are arising out of the same issue, they
are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The issues arise in both the petitions are to treat the
petitioners as permanent regular employees with the Municipal
and to pay the arrears with interest.
4. As both the petitions are relating to the same issue, both
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6388/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2024
undefined
the petitions have been tagged and the same are disposed of by
this common judgment by treating Special Civil application
No.6388 of 2016 as lead matter.
5. So far as the lead matter, i.e. Special Civil Application
No.6388 of 2016 is concerned, same is arising from the following
background of facts:-
5.1 It is the case of the petitioners that respondent -
Nagarpalika issued advertisement for filling up 27 posts instead
of regularizing the services of the petitioners. That the
petitioners have raised their grievance by preferring Reference
before the Industrial Tribunal wherein a settlement has been
arrived at and the Tribunal disposed of the Reference. Pursuant
to the settlement entered into, an order was passed by the Chief
Officer of the Nagarpalika regularizing the services of the
petitioners and accordingly, the reference was disposed of by the
Tribunal. It is the case of the petitioners that as the letter was
not handed over to the individual person/s, the workmen asked
the documents under the Right to Information Act and the Chief
Officer of the Right to Information Act issued letter indicating the
fact that the letter of appointment was issued to the petitioners.
Thereafter, the Nagarpalika has issued resolution dated
28.09.2012 mentioning that 27 persons to be regularized in the
services and pursuant to the said resolution, an order came to be
passed by the Director of Municipalities. That petitioners are
working for more than 25 to 30 years continuously and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6388/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2024
undefined
uninterruptedly and so far as the advertisement is concerned,
the same is for the new recruitment and does not pertain to the
petitioners who are working for more than 30 years. That
pursuant to the resolution and after approval of the Director of
Municipalities, appointment orders were issued and on account
of issuance of the appointment order pursuant to the settlement
the respondents are restrained the petitioners from putting a
condition of appointment for a period of five years on
consolidated wage and after five years they are to be placed in
the regular time-scale of pay. The respondents are estopped
from raising issue for issuance of appointment order on regular
establishment on the basis of the Municipal Resolution.
5.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned action
on the part of the respondents of issuance of advertisement and
making further condition in the letter dated 17.04.2013, the
petitioners have preferred the present petitions.
6. Heard Mr.T. R. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, Mr.R. C. Kakkad, learned counsel appearing for
respondent - Nagarpalika and Mr.Meet Thakkar, learned
Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent -
State Authority at length.
7. Mr.T. R. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners has submitted the same facts which are narrated in
the memo of petitions. He has submitted that earlier the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6388/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2024
undefined
petitioners had filed the petition with a prayer to direct the
respondents to regularize the service of the petitioners and to
pay all consequential benefits. He has submitted that the
respondent - Nagarpalika has issued appointment orders to the
workmen pursuant to the order passed by the Labour Court and
gave original orders to the workmen and after two days the
respondent Nagarpalika asked to return back the original
papers / orders and, therefore, all the workmen gave the same.
He has submitted that when the petitioners asked original orders
under the Right to Information Act, the respondent - Nagarpalika
stated that the same are in the custody of the chief officer and it
were not available. He has submitted that the petitioners have
earlier approached the Industrial Tribunal and after recording of
the consensus between the parties, the Industrial Tribunal
passed an order which was implemented since the respondent -
Nagarpalika has not challenged the said order. He has submitted
that the 224 posts are sanctioned and out of which 20% cut off
as per the Government Resolution, 177 posts are vacant and the
petitioners are working on that posts and they are getting fixed
salary at present. He has submitted that three petitioners were
died and three to four petitioners were retired from the services,
have been given gratuity having served 30 years of service but
the gratuity amount is calculated on the basis of the daily wages.
The petitioners have forgotten their earlier dues as per the
settlement and after the order of the Industrial Tribunal, the
petitioners are entitled to get the benefits from 2013. Mr.Mishra,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6388/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2024
undefined
the petitions may be allowed and quashed and set aside the
advertisement and the conditions mentioned in the letter dated
17.04.2013 and the respondents be directed to treat the
petitioners as permanent regular employees and paid arrears
with 12% interest.
7.1 Mr.Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
has submitted that the petitioners raised their grievance with
regard to regularization of service before the Industrial Tribunal
which came to be disposed of on account of the settlement
arrived at between the parties. He has submitted that in view of
the settlement the Chief Officer of the Nagarpalika passed order
regularizing the services of the petitioners, however, the
appointment letter was not handed over to any persons
individually. He has submitted that the Nagarpalika had issued
resolution dated 28.09.2012 stating that 27 persons be
regularized in the services of the respondent - Nagarpalika and
the said resolution dated 28.09.2012 was passed in view of the
direction issued by the Director of Municipalities in September
2012. He has submitted that the sixteen petitioners are working
for more than 25 to 30 years continuously and uninterruptedly
and so far as the advertisement is concerned, the same does not
pertain to the petitioners who are working for more than 30
years. He has submitted that pursuant to the resolution and after
approval of the Director of Municipalities and pursuant to the
settlement the appointment orders were issued and after
disposal of the main reference by the Tribunal, the respondents
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6388/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2024
undefined
are restrained from putting condition of appointment for a period
of five years on consolidated wages and after five years, they are
to be placed in the regular time scale of pay. He has submitted
that the petitions deserve to be allowed the impugned letter
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7.2 In support of his submissions, Mr.Mishra, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the following
decisions.
(1) Jetpur Navagadh Nagarpalika thro Chief Officer Vs.
Jitendra R. Vyas and others in Special Civil Application
No.5974 of 2004 dated 29.11.2012.
(2) Jetpur Navagadh Nagarpalika thro Chief Officer Vs. Ketan
M. Pandya and others in Special Civil Application No.9833
of 2004 dated 13.12.2012.
(3) Gujarat Maritime Board and others Vs. Ashokkumar Ijjatrai
Anjariya and another reported in 2008 (3) GLH 767.
(4) Junagadh Agricultural University Vs. Maltiben V. Dave in
Special Civil Application No.1756 of 2005 dated
08.08.2013.
(5) Executive Engineer and others Vs. The Secretary in
Special Civil Application Nos.6123 of 2007 and 6124 of
2007 dated 28.01.2013.
(6) Executive Engineer and others Vs. The Secretary in
Special Leave to Appeal (CC) No.19515 of 2013 dated
19.11.2013.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6388/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2024
undefined
(7) Dholka Municipality thro Chief Officer Vs. Bhagwanbhai B
Gurjar and others in Special Civil Application No.8317 of
2008 dated 18.09.2009 and 25.09.2009.
(8) Botad Municipality Vs. Bhartiben Tapubhai Vaghela and
another in Special Civil Application No. 2010 of 2012
dated 11.04.2012.
(9) Botad Municipality Vs. Bhartiben Tapubhai Vaghela and
another in Letters Patent Appeal No. 452 of 2014 dated
31.03.2014.
(10) Botad Municipality Vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai and
another in Special Civil Application No. 2012 of 2012
dated 11.04.2012.
(11) Botad Municipality Vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai and
another in Letters Patent Appeal No. 334 of 2014 dated
12.03.2014.
(12) Rameshbhai Becharbhai Parmar Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation and another in Special Civil Application Nos.
11351 of 2008, 11352 of 2008 to 11354 of 2008 dated
18.02.2009.
(13) Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and
another Vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari
Sanghatana reported in (2009) 8 SCC 556.
(14) Delhi Development Authority Vs. Rajendra Singh and
others reported in (2009) 8 SCC 582.
(15) Ishwar Singh Vs. Union of India reported in (2007) 2 SCC
(L&S) 835.
(16) Durgapur Casual Workers Union and others Vs. Food
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6388/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2024
undefined
Corporation of India and others reported in 2015 I CLR
Supreme 379.
(17) Rajender Singh Vs. UOI reported in 2015 I LLJ 389 (Delhi).
(18) Talala Gram Panchayat Vs. Bharatkumar Laldas Agaravat
and others in Special Civil Application No.27.09.2012 and
28.09.2012.
(19) Talala Gram Panchayat Vs. Bharatkumar Laldas Agaravat
and others in Letters Patent Appeal No.1103 of 2013
dated 06.03.2014.
(20) Talala Gram Panchayat Vs. Bharatkumar Laldas Agaravat
and others in Special Leave to Appeal (CC) No. 9741 of
2014 dated 14.07.2014.
(21) Deputy Executive Engineer Panchayat Sub - Division
Chotila Vs. Surendranagar District - Mazdoor Sangh and
others in Special Civil Application No.25338 of 2006 dated
08.10.2014.
(22) State of Karnataka and others Vs. M. L. Kesari and others
reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247.
(23) Amarkant Rai Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in
2015 II LLJ 1 (SC).
(24) Umrala Gram Panchayat Vs. Secretary, Municipal
Employees Union and others reported in 2015 II CLR 57.
(25) Management of National Aerospace Laboratories,
Bangalore by its Director Vs. engineering and General
Workers Union and another reported in 2015 I CLR 777.
(25) Krupesh C. Patel and others Vs. State of Gujarat and
others in Letters Patent Appeal No.1108 of 2012 dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6388/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2024
undefined
22.09.2014.
(26) Gandhidham Nagarpalika Vs. Akhil Bharatiya Safai Kamdar
Congress and others in Special Civil Application No.8678
of 2016 dated 23.08.2017.
8. Per contra, Mr.R. C. Kakkad, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1 - Nagarpalika has opposed the present petitions
and has referred to and relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed on
behalf of the Nagarpalika in both the petitions. He has, while
referring to page No.81 para - 9 of condition No.9, submitted
that after proposal of the Nagarpalika, the order came to be
passed by the Director of Municipalities. He has referred to the
memo of petition more particularly prayer (B) and has submitted
that the grievance of the petitioners is against letter dated
17.04.2013 and they do not want to accept the order passed by
the Director of the Municipalities on the proposal of the
Nagarpalika and such grievance of the petitioners is not against
the Nagarpalika but it is against the State Authority. He has
submitted that unless and until the order dated 17.04.2013
quashed and set aside, the appointments of the petitioners
cannot be regularized. He has submitted that the petitioners are
not working since 15 to 20 years and the order dated 17.04.2013
came to be passed after undertaking submitted by the
concerned workman before the Director of Municipality and
unless and until the order dated 17.04.2013 passed by the
Director of Municipality quashed or modified it is binding to the
respondent - Nagarpalika. He has submitted that the petitioners
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6388/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2024
undefined
wanted to regularize the appointment then they ought not to
have settled the reference and the petitioners were satisfied by
the order dated 17.04.2013. He has submitted that the
petitioners are not entitled any of the reliefs as prayed for and
the petition deserves to be dismissed in limine.
9. Mr.Meet Thakkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent - State has opposed the present
petitions and submitted that petition being meritless deserves to
be dismissed.
11. In the case of Jitendra R. Vyas (supra), this Court (Coram:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice K. S. Jhaveri) has held and observed in para 8,
9 and 10 as under:-
"8. I have heard learned advocate Mr. Trivedi for the
petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Jadeja for the
respondent workmen. From the facts which are emerging
from the record, it is clear that the respondent workmen
were appointed in the year 1989 and they were discharged
from service the year 1990. However, in the year 2000, the
respondent workmen were restored to their original
position by the Labour Court judgement which is not
subject matter of any petition or other proceedings.
Pursuant to the order of the Labour Court, since the
respondent workmen were not given benefit of regular
employees, they approached the Industrial Tribunal for
their regularisation on the basis of working for 240 days.
They moved demand application before the Tribunal at Exh.
B and pursuant to which, the Municipality filed their
statement before the Tribunal. After considering the
submissions of the parties, the Tribunal directed the
petitioner to regularise the workmen. The fact remains that
the respondent workmen were working from 1989 and they
were discharged from service in the year 1990 and they
were restored to the original post by the Labour Court in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6388/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2024
undefined
the year 2000 with continuity of service. The said order of
the Labour Court was not challenged by the Chief Officer or
the Municipality before any competent Court and therefore,
admittedly, they have worked for more than 10 years. The
contention of the petitioner that the appointment of the
respondent workmen was back door entry cannot be
acceptable for the reason that the person who has
committed wrong in appointing the workmen in the
Municipality is the Officer of the Municipality. Since the
employees came before the Court, it will not be open for
the petitioner to contend that the appointment of the
workmen is back door entry. It is not appropriate for the the
petitioner to raise the contention that the appointment of
the respondent workmen was back door entry because they
were appointed after selection. At the most, it can be said
that this is an irregular appointment and it is not an illegal
appointment. None of the employees were found not
suitable by the petitioner for the post for which they were
appointed. While considering the set up of the petitioner,
no documents or sanction of post were produced before the
Tribunal. From the documents which are produced at
Annexure-C to the petition, it is not is position to accept
that the persons who are working on the basis of the
document, are senior to the respondents. In that view of
the matter, I am of the opinion that the documents which
were not produced before the Tribunal are tried to be
produced before this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India and those documents are not helpful
to the petitioner.
9. Though the General Body of the petitioner has accepted
the award of the Industrial Tribunal to regularise the
workmen, it is the infight between the elected body and the
executive, the petitioner filed the petition. It will not be in
the fitness of things that the Chief Officer of the
Municipality sits over the decision of the elected body and
it is not in the interest of the petitioner Municipality. Since
the respondent workmen are working for more than 23
years, the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper.
The Full Bench decision relied on by learned counsel for the
petitioner is of no help to the petitioner.
10. In view of above, it will not be appropriate for this
Court to reverse the findings arrived at by the Tribunal.
Hence the petition deserves to be dismissed and the same
is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief stands
vacated."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6388/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2024
undefined
12. In the case of Ketan M. Pandya (supra), this Court
(Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice K. S. Jhaveri) has held and observed
in para 3 as under:
"3. I have heard learned advocate for the petitioner. This
court is of the view that the Tribunal after taking into
account the long service of the respondent - workman with
the petitioner - Nagarpalika, has passed the judgment and
award and granted the minimum pay scale to the
respondent - workmen from 1.1.2004. I am in complete
agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal in passing
the award. I do not find any infirmity much less any
perversity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed and the
same is accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim
relief, if any, stands vacated."
13. In the case of Gujarat Maritme Board and others
(supra), the Division Bench of this Court has held and observed
in para 6 and 7 as under:-
"6. We having perused the judgment and order under
challenge feel it appropriate to reproduce the following
observations made in paras 3 and 6 which are as under:
"3....The irony stood compounded when it was given out by
the learned counsel for the respondents that the main
reason for the petitioner being left out was that there was
no award in his favour and that even the order of his
appointment as a clerk-cum-typist on a permanent vacant
post had had to be cancelled under pressure from the
union and the employees who stood above the petitioner in
the select list of the beneficiaries of the resolution dated
17.10.1988."
"6....Thus, the Board itself had, recognising the seniority
and utility of the petitioner as typist, appointed him on the
post of clerk-cum-typist against a vacancy. The said order
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6388/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2024
undefined
was cancelled without any express reason or an
opportunity of being heard and, as given out on behalf of
the Board, under pressure from the union and the
employees who stood above the petitioner in the seniority
list of the beneficiaries of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988.
Under such circumstances, it would be necessary and in
the interest of justice that the order dated 3.9.1998
cancelling the petitioner's appointment on the vacant post
of clerk-cum-typist is set aside and in view of the
petitioner's regular working on that post from 11.3.1997,
his service is regularised on that post with all the
concomitant benefits...."
7. At this juncture, the learned advocate Mr. Anjaria also
invited our attention to yet another judgment of the
Honourable the Apex Court in Gurbachan Lal V/s. Regional
Engineering College, Kurukshetra and others, (2007) 11
SCC 102 wherein the Honourable the Apex Court has
observed in paragraph 51 as under:
"At this juncture we may observe that the aforesaid
decisions of this Court which were overruled by the
Constitution Bench decision in which reasons for giving
directions to absorb temporary employees were on solid
foundation which, however was not dealt with by the
Constitution Bench at the time of overruling them. The
reasons given in the aforesaid decisions which stand on
solid footing, need to be considered in the light of the right
of asking for absorption as permanent employees under
the Government is a ground which needs to be
reconsidered. Be that as it may, the Constitution Bench
decision having overruled the above decisions, we need
not delve any further on this aspect of this matter."
14. In the case of Bhagwanbhai B. Gujrgar and others
(supra), this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice S. R. Brahmbhatt)
has held and observed in para 10, 11 and 12 as under:-
"10. It is required to be noted that the Labour Court has
observed in para no.6 of its decision that no Recruitment
Rules method have been proved to dislodge the claim of
the workmen. The Labour Court has relying upon exhibit-64
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6388/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2024
undefined
recorded that the existing vacancies were 201, against this
only 81 vacancies were filled-in, leaving out 120 vacancies
available. Thereafter it is recorded that clear 77 vacancies
were available and the Labour Court has also recorded that
the present petitioners (respondents herein) were senior
most in the seniority list. The Labour Court has also
recorded that there was nothing against the respondents
workmen in regard to their work and the financial
stringencies has not been pleaded by the petitioner. It is
also recorded by the Labour Court that many employees
like present respondents have been regularised. It is
categorically recorded by the Labour Court that in
Reference (I.T.) 75 of 1997 many employees were
regularised. The Labour Court has recorded that the
testimony of the Chief Officer went to show that in 1988
what was the recruitment procedure available was not
known to any one and after his joining in Nagarpalika they
have never advertised any post nor have they requisitioned
names from Employment Exchange. The Labour Court has
taken all these facts in to consideration and passed
appropriate order.
11. This Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is also required to be mindful of the observations
passed by the Apex Court in case of SECRETARY, STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Vs. UMADEVI (3) AND OTHERS,
reported in (2006) 4 SCC, page 1. Even in that judgment
the Apex Court in para-53 has observed with regard to
irregularity in appointments. In the instant case, as could
be seen from the record, it can well be said that at the best
there was some irregularity in appointment of the
respondents which could not have been held against them
for denying them the benefit of regularisation otherwise
available to them and which in fact had been granted to
them, which later on came to be suspended by Collector in
its exercise of power under section 258 of the Municipalities
Act 1963.
12. This Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is also required to be mindful of the observations
passed by the Apex Court in case of SECRETARY, STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Vs. UMADEVI (3) AND OTHERS,
reported in (2006) 4 SCC, page 1. Even in that judgment
the Apex Court in para-53 has observed with regard to
irregularity in appointments. In the instant case, as could
be seen from the record, it can well be said that at the best
there was some irregularity in appointment of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6388/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2024
undefined
respondents which could not have been held against them
for denying them the benefit of regularisation otherwise
available to them and which in fact had been granted to
them, which later on came to be suspended by Collector in
its exercise of power under section 258 of the Municipalities
Act 1963."
15. The contentions on the part of the respondents are that the
Director of Municipality has passed the order for sanctioning of
27 posts for accommodating 27 employees who had raised the
dispute and whose cases were before the Labour Court. The
Director of Municipality has sanctioned the posts. It is the case of
the respondents that the conditions imposed in the order dated
17.04.2013 are not to be applied for filling up the posts and not
for the employees who were already in service and the
petitioners moved for clarification or for substantive proceedings
challenging the conditions imposed by the Director and
consequent enforcement by the Municipality. It is also the case
of the respondents that the petitioners are not working since 25
to 30 years and the order dated 17.04.2013 came to be passed
after tendering the undertaking by the concerned workman
before the Director of Municipality and the order dated
17.04.2013 passed by the Director of Municipality is binding to
the respondent - Nagarpalika. That the respondent - authority
has committed an error of facts and law in issuing the fresh
advertisement and making condition in the order dated
17.04.2013 and the workmen have accepted and agreed for new
recruitment as per the award dated 01.05.2013 and 03.05.2013.
That after the said award neither the resolution nor letter can be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6388/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2024
undefined
seen because after the entering into the settlement by the
concerned workmen, the award came to be passed.
16. That after the settlement and the award, there is no
question arise to place the workmen in the regular pay scale
after locking period of five years and even the petitioners agreed
to forgo their service from 1995, 1996 to 1998 to be regularized
from 2013 as per the award.
17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
the averments made in the petitions, it appears that respective
petitioners had preferred the petitions for regularizing their
services in compliance of the resolution dated 28.09.2012, which
came to be disposed of as withdrawn with a liberty to file
separate petition. It reveals from the record that the respondent
- Nagarpalika issued an advertisement to fill up 27 posts instead
of regularizing the services of the petitioners and the reference
came to be filed by the petitioners for regularizing their services,
however, in view of the settlement entered into between the
parties, the said reference was disposed of. In view of
settlement, the Chief Officer of the Nagarpalika passed an order
on 30.04.2013 for regularization the services of the petitioners,
but the appointment order was not handed over to the
employees individually and, therefore, the petitioners asked such
information under the Right to Information Act. It appears that
the Nagarpalika issued resolution dated 28.09.2012 to regularize
27 persons in the services in view of the direction issued by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6388/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2024
undefined
Director of Municipality. Considering overall facts of the case, it
appears that the petitioners are working for more than 25 to 30
years continuously and without any interruption and so far as the
advertisement issued by the Nagarpalika is concerned, it is not
applicable to the petitioners, who are already working with the
Nagarpalika. It appears that the order dated 17.04.2013 passed
by the Municipality is for new recruits who are required to be
placed in fix wages for a period of five years and, therefore, the
conditions laid down in the order dated 17.04.2013 are not for
the petitioners. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court
as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, it appears that the similar
issue has been arisen earlier before this Court in serious of
petitions, which are decided by this Court. The Nagarpalika
having passed the resolution cannot deny the benefit of
regularization which has been implemented. The impugned
action of the respondent in implementing the appointment order
is illegal and discriminatory and the same is against the order
passed by the Tribunal and even the order passed by the
Tribunal has not been challenged by the Nagarpalika. The
respondents have committed an error of law and facts in issuing
of the fresh advertisement for filling up the post by the
Nagarpalika and passing the order by the Director of the
Municipality dated 17.04.2013.
18. In the result, the petitions are hereby allowed. The
advertisement dated 27.05.2014 issued by the Jamkhambhaliya
Nagarpalika and the conditions laid down in the letter / order
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6388/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2024
undefined
dated 17.04.2013 are quashed and set aside. The respondents
are directed to treat the petitioners as permanent regular
employees w.e.f. 09.05.2013 in compliance with the Municipal
Resolution dated 28.09.2012 and to pay arrears with interest at
the rate of 6% p.a. on or before 31st July 2024. If any petitioner/s
is expired in that case such benefit will be given to his/her legal
heirs. Rule is made absolute.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
FURTHER ORDER
After pronouncement of the aforesaid order, today, though
the matter is kept for orders, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent - Nagarpalika submits that he is filing written
submission along with the copy of the decisions, which is
referred to and relied upon by him. In fact, it was clear from the
earlier order that during the course of the hearing, learned
counsel have to submit such written submission on or before
01.05.2024 but the same is not done. Therefore, the request to
file written submission is not accepted.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
