Gujarat High Court
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs Shantilal Muljibhai Valodara on 3 February, 2025
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1415/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1415 of 2019
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16165 of 2004
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.
Versus
SHANTILAL MULJIBHAI VALODARA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR PH PATHAK(665) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 03/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)
1. This appeal arises out of a judgement dated
28.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special
Civil Application No. 16165 of 2004.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1415/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
2. It appears that while issuing directions in the said
petition, reliance is placed on an order passed in Special
Civil Application No. 11490 of 2009 dated 13.12.2018.
We are informed by learned counsel Ms. Reena Kamani,
learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. P.H. Pathak,
learned advocate for the respondent that as far as
Special Civil Application No. 11490 of 2009 is concerned,
the appellant Corporation had preferred a Letters Patent
Appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No. 800 of 2019. The
said appeal was disposed of by a co-ordinate bench of this
court on 16.07.2024. The judgement and order reads as
under:
"1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment
and order dated 13.12.2018 passed by the learned
Single Judge in the captioned writ petition whereby, the
appellant - Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is only
directed to examine the case of the original petitioners
- respondents herein. Being aggrieved, the appellants -
Corporation has filed the present appeal.
2. It is the case of the appellants that the learned Single
Judge has erred in not considering the policy of the
appellants - Corporation wherein, only those daily
wagers, who have completed 900 days in five years as
full time daily wagers as on 15.08.2004, are to be
considered for regularisation. It appears that the
learned Single Judge has also considered the order
passed by the Supreme Court dated 25.11.2002 in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1415/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
similarly situated employees part-timers/daily wagers
and has allowed the writ petition. It is specifically
contended that the part-timers are not entitled to any
regularisation as per the policy of the Corporation.
3. Mr. P.C.Chaudhari, learned advocate appearing for
the respondents has submitted at the outset that in
fact, the learned Single Judge has only directed the
Corporation to examine the case of the respondents as
per the policy and hence, no prejudice is caused to the
appellants - Corporation in examining the case as per
the policy. It is submitted that similarly situated part-
timers are regularised by the Corporation.
4. It is not in dispute and from the pleadings it is
noticed by us that the respondents are working as part-
time sweepers since the year 1986-87. The learned
Single Judge has also noticed that the Supreme Court
has categorically stated in the said order that the
regularization of the employees may not be treated as
precedent. After recording the submissions, and also
the order passed by the Supreme Court dated
25.11.2002 in SLP (Civil) No.21241 of 2002, the
learned Single Judge has issued the following
directions:
"7.1 The petitioners shall make an appropriate
representation in detailed pointing out the
number of days for which they have continued to
discharge the services in respective capacity
within a period of 15 days from today;
7.2 Upon such receipt of application, the
respondent Corporation shall examine the
number of days which the petitioners have
worked and if the petitioners are till date
continued in the services they shall be
regularised on fulfilling the qualification as
required for seeking regularisation and
accordingly the services of the petitioners shall
be regularised moment they found to have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1415/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
fulfilled the criteria of the policy as relied upon;
7.3 This exercise shall be undertaken by the
respondent corporation within a period of three
months from the date of representation along
with writ of this Court as permanent full time
employees with their respective dates and give
consequential effect from the date of approaching
this Court i.e. from the year 2009."
5. Thus, the learned Single Judge has only directed the
appellants - Corporation to examine the number of days
of each of the respondents and ultimately, if they fulfill
the criteria of the policy, they may pass appropriate
orders. We do not find that any prejudice is caused to
the appellants - Corporation, if the case of each of the
respondent-part-timers is examined as per their policy
of regularization. There is no direction issued by the
learned Single Judge to confer benefit of regularization
to the Respondents, hence the Corporation can take
appropriate decision after examining their case. 6.
Hence, the present appeal is disposed of. As directed by
the learned Single Judge, the exercise shall be
undertaken within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of the order. Interim relief, granted
earlier, stands vacated."
3. In light of the aforesaid order, for the reasons
assigned in the said order, present appeal is also disposed
of in the same terms.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
(D. M. DESAI, J)
DIVYA
