Gujarat High Court
District Rural Development Agency Thru ... vs Ramsinh Raisinhbhai Patel on 21 February, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/326/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 326 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2806 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2025
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 326 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY THRU DIRECTOR & ANR.
Versus
RAMSINH RAISINHBHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 21/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. Admit. Learned advocate Mr. Dipak R.Dave waives
service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent-
workman. By consent of the learned advocates appearing for
the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing
today.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/326/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
2. The present Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15
of the Letters Patent, 1865 emanates from the judgment dated
30.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in the
captioned writ petition, thereby confirming the award dated
08.09.2021 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in
Reference (IT) No.101 of 2016 ordering to grant the benefits
flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988
issued by the State Government through its Roads & Buildings
Department.
3. Learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw appearing for the
appellants, at the outset, has vehemently submitted that in
fact, the provisions of Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988 will not be applicable to the present respondent-
workman, as he was appointed purely on ad hoc/temporary,
part-time basis vide order dated 02.02.1985 by Godhra Taluka
Panchayat in response to his application dated 21.01.1985. He
submitted that the respondent-workman was engaged as a
'Safai Kamdar' and hence, he cannot be extended the benefits
of the aforesaid resolution, which pertains to conferring the
regular pay scale, who are daily wagers after rendering 5- 10-
15 years of service.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has submitted that the
learned Single Judge fell in error in allowing the writ petition,
since the actual working of the respondent was eight hours as
a part-time employee, which does not entitle them to the
benefit of the aforesaid Government Resolution. Thus, it is
urged that the judgment and order passed by the learned
Single Judge confirming the award may be set aside.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/326/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. D.R. Dave, appearing
for the respondent-workman, at the outset has submitted that
in fact, the case of the respondent-workman was
recommended for regularization in the year 1991. He has also
submitted that in fact, the junior to the present respondent-
workman, one Bariya Kanabhai Khumabhai, had approached
the Labour Court, wherein the Labour Court granted the
benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and
the said award has been confirmed by this Court vide
judgment dated 20.06.2019 passed in Special Civil Application
No.13798 of 2018 and allied matter. It is submitted that the
said judgment of learned Single Judge is further confirmed by
the Division Bench vide judgment dated 17.09.2021 passed in
Letters Patent Appeal No.734 of 2021.
6. Further, learned advocate Mr. Dave has placed reliance
on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Jaggo; Anita & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., passed in Civil
Appeal No.14831 of 2024, dated 20.12.2024 (2024 LawSuit
(SC) 1209), and also the judgment in the case of Shripal &
Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, passed in Civil Appeal
No.8157 of 2024, dated 31.01.2025 (2025 LawSuit (SC) 152),
and has submitted that the Supreme Court has categorically
held that the employer of the local body or local authority
cannot deny regularization of an employee, who has been
working for number of years, either on the pretext that there
are no sanction posts available or they have no right to claim
the regularization.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/326/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
7. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties. The learned Single Judge has confirmed
the award dated 08.09.2021 passed by the Industrial Tribunal,
Vadodara in Reference (IT) No.101 of 2016, directing the
appellants to extend the benefits arising from the Government
Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It is not in dispute and settled
legal precedent that an employee, who has been engaged on a
daily-wage basis, and who has completed 5-10-15 years of
service, is extended the benefit of such resolution, which
provides for regular pay-scale. This resolution has been
subject matter of various litigations and ultimately, the
Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat And Ors. Vs.
PWD Employees Union and Ors. [(2013) 12 SCC 417], has
clarified that the daily-wagers, who have worked in various
departments are also entitled to the benefits of regular pay
scale and thereafter, pension, as declared by the State
Government in such Government Resolution.
8. In the present case, we have noticed that another
colleague or co-employee of the present respondent-workman
viz. Bariya Kanabhai Khumabhai, has already been extended
the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and
the award extending such benefits has been confirmed by this
Court.
9. In the present case, the respondent-workman has served
for more than 30 years with the appellant. In the case of
Shripal (supra), the appellant-workman was labeled as
casual employee and was not regularized and the Supreme
Court in case of such employees has held thus:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/326/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
17. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation
of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic
labour law principles. Once it is established that their services
were terminated without adhering to Section 6E and 6N of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in
essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to
perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget and
compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such
concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutory obligations or
negate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations
cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served
continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period.
10. In the case of Jaggo; Anita & Ors. (supra), the
Supreme Court, while considering the issue of regularization
of employees, who are labeled as part-timers and contractual,
has directed the employer to regularize their services by
holding thus:
"25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees,
particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted
forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary
contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs,
they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long- term
obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several
ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for
work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the
functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary"
or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of
regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers
of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees
are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are
frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the
present case. This practice undermines the principles of
natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant
insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their
service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often
find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill
development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/326/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity
between them and their regular counterparts, despite their
contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Sheid: Institutions increasingly
resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary
employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers
with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation
but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the
obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees
are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension,
provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when
their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security
subjects them and their families to undue hardship,
especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen
circumstances.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail
the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered
to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are
often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of
long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish
between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically
held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged
in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more
than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-
time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is
being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to
indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases
where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack
adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments
often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no
vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees,
overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases
where regularization is appropriate. This selective application
distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing
it against employees who have rendered indispensable services
over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is
imperative for government departments to lead by example in
providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a
temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles
are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes
international labour standards but also exposes the organization to
legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring
fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the
burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold
the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/326/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
embody. This approach aligns with international standards and
sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby
contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the
country."
11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid facts and law enunciated
by the Supreme Court, we are not inclined to interfere with
the judgment dated 30.10.2024 passed by the learned Single
Judge in the captioned writ petition. The present appeal fails.
The same is dismissed.
12. The benefits arising from the award and as confirmed by
the learned Single Judge shall be paid within a period of eight
weeks from today.
13. As a sequel, the connected Civil Application stands
disposed of.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj/1
