Gujarat High Court
District Development Officer vs Jitubhai Sumanbhai Patel on 17 January, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6081/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 6081 of
2024
In
F/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 32444 of 2024
With
F/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 32444 of 2024
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 446 of 2024
==========================================================
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
Versus
JITUBHAI SUMANBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS HARSHAL N PANDYA(3141) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS HETAL PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 157,158,159
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Respondent(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 17/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. It is submitted that the present review application has been filed on
behalf of the District Panchayat, Surendranagar confining the relief for
review of the matter of 05 private respondents who were original
petitioner Nos.137, 138, 143, 144 and 145, namely Special Civil
Application No.13873 of 2022, which was decided vide judgment and order
dated 29.7.2022. The contention is that the review application is confined
to the original petitioners who were working as Multipurpose Health
Worker (Male) with Rajkot District Panchayat.
2. The Review Application is delayed by 179 days, for which, no
plausible explanation has been furnished. Only explanation given for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6081/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2025
undefined
delay in filing the Review Application is that the Special Leave Petition was
filed by the State Government, wherein, vide order dated 09.08.2024, the
Hon'ble Apex Court permitted the State Government to withdraw the
Special Leave Petition with a liberty to file a review before the High Court.
3. On merits of the Review Application, when we have required the
learned counsel for the review applicant to address the grounds seeking
for review, it is submitted that the period of engagement of the original
petitioners is from 2007 to 2014. However, it is pertinent to note that all
the respondents herein were appointed on contract basis for a period of 11
months between the year 2007-2014.
4. From the said submission, it is evident that all the respondents
herein/original petitioners had continued in employment between the year
2007-2014 with artificial gaps in their contractual appointment. The
continuous service was rendered by the original petitioners during their
contractual appointment followed by a further period of five years in fixed
pay which was also completed by them before they were granted regular
pay scale in terms of the Government Resolution dated 16.02.2006.
5. The statement made in the Review Application further records that
the Panchayat, Rural Housing and Rural Development Department, vide
notification dated 15.06.2011, notified the Multi-purpose Health Workers
(Male) Class-III (Panchayat Service) Recruitment Rules, 2011 in order to
provide regular recruitment to the post of Multi-purpose Health Worker
(Male) in the superior Panchayat service, Class-III, direct recruitment, with
a view to bring an end to all contractual appointments for the post of Multi-
purpose Health Worker.
6. It is also an admitted fact of the matter that all the original
petitioners/respondents herein, who were initially appointed on contractual
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6081/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2025
undefined
basis and worked continuously for the said period with artificial breaks
between the year 2003-2012, had participated in the direct recruitment
exercise conducted pursuant to the Recruitment Rules, 2011 and they
were granted appointment on a fixed pay for five years after selection
which they had completed successfully till the year 2017 before they were
absorbed in the regular pay scale.
7. The insistence of the learned counsel for the review applicant is that
with the absorption of the original petitioners in the year 2017 on the
regular post in terms of the Government Resolution dated 16.02.2006 and
providing them the regular pay scale after direct recruitment, they cannot
be granted the benefit of continuity of service since the inception of their
appointment. The submission is that the benefit of the contractual service,
which was with artificial breaks, cannot be granted to the original
petitioners and their appointments on regular basis is to be considered
from the date of their regularization/absorption in the regular pay scale.
8. The submission is found wholly misconceived, for the simple reason
that there is no dispute about the facts of the present case that all the
original petitioners/respondents herein were initially engaged on
contractual basis in the year 2003 and while continuing on the substantive
post of Multi-purpose Health Worker (Male) Class-III (Panchayat Service),
they have undergone the selection process and have been selected to the
said post in terms of the Recruitment Rules, 2011.
9. This is the reason which we have already expressed in the judgment
and order dated 23.04.2024 while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal
upholding the judgment and order dated 05.05.2022 passed by the learned
Single Judge.
10. No error much less error apparent on the face of the record could be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6081/2024 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2025
undefined
pointed out by the learned counsel for the review applicant. Moreover,
rehearing within the scope of review is not permitted. No good ground has
been made out for review of the aforesaid judgment. The Review
Application is accordingly, dismissed, both on the grounds of delay as well
as on merits.
Sd/-
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
Sd/-
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
OMKAR
