Gujarat High Court
Satishbhai Dhanjibhai Solanki vs State Of Gujarat on 16 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11846/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11846 of 2020
==========================================================
SATISHBHAI DHANJIBHAI SOLANKI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with
MS ADITI S RAOL(8128) for the Petitioner
MS POOJA ASHAR, AGP for the Respondents - State Authorities
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 16/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1.1 The present petition, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner with the
following main prayers.
" 19(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a
writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order of direction declaring the inaction on the
part of the respondent authorities in extending
the benefit contained in the Finance Department
circular dated 16.07.2019 ordering payment of the
minimum of pay scale of the post against which
the part-timers are appointed to the petitioner
herein as discriminatory and arbitrary and thus
violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11846/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a
writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding the respondent
authorities to extend the benefits contained in
Finance Department Circular dated 16.07.2019 to
the petitioner;
(C) Pending admission and final hearing of
the petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to
direct the respondent authorities to pay the
petitioner the minimum of the pay scale of the
post against which he is appointed as part-timer
with immediate effect;
(D) Pending admission and final hearing of
the petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to
restrain the respondent authorities from
terminating the service of the petitioner for
eventual engagement of outsourcing agency /
contractor;
(E) Pending admission and final hearing of
the matter, Your Lordships may be pleased to
restrain the respondent authorities from taking
any coercive action against the petitioner or from
terminating his services otherwise than in
accordance with law; "
1.2 During the pendency of this petition, as there are
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11846/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
subsequent developments, the petitioner has placed the
relevant facts on record and thereby added the following
prayer with the permission of the Court vide order dated
19.07.2024.
"19AA. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a
writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction to quash and set aside office
order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the District
Treasury Officer, Nadiad, respondent no.2
(Annexure-H) rejecting the petitioner's case for
benefits of resolution dated 16.07.2019."
2. Heard learned advocates. Rule returnable forthwith.
With the consent of the learned advocates, this petition is
taken up for hearing and final disposal today.
3.1 Learned senior advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta with
learned advocate Ms.Aditi Raol for the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner came to be appointed as a part
time Safai Kamdar by respondent No.2 on 01.07.2012 and
since then, he has been in service; and that on paper, the
petitioner was appointed to work for four hours a day, but in
reality, he is working for six hours a day; and that though
he is called part-timer, in actual fact, he has been rendering
service full time, on fixed pay, without any allowance or any
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11846/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
other benefits that are given to the regular employees of the
State Government; and that the petitioner is being paid less
than the minimum wages prescribed by the State Government
and the wages of the petitioner is not being revised from
time to time as per the minimum wages prevalent in the
State. He has submitted that this petition may be allowed.
3.2 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State
of Punjab versus Jagjit Singh reported in (2017) 1 SCC 248.
He has also relied upon the decision of this Court recorded
on Special Civil Application No.7462 of 2012 and cognate
matters dated 21.12.2018, which is confirmed by the Division
Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1155 of
2019 dated 09.05.2019. He has also relied upon the Circular
dated 16.07.2019 issued by the Finance Department ordering
payment of minimum of the pay scale to the post against
which the part-timers are appointed.
3.3 He has drawn the attention of this Court towards
the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court
dated 19.07.2022 recorded on Special Civil Application
No.6852 of 2020. The operative part of the said order reads
as under.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11846/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
" 22. For all the aforesaid reasons as discussed
hereinabove considering the categories namely 8
in number, the petitioners are held to be entitled
to the benefit of Circular dated 16.7.2019 and,
therefore, all these petitions are allowed and the
rejections if any, on these grounds as mentioned
hereinabove are quashed and set aside.
23. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. Direct service is permitted. No order as to
costs."
3.4 He has also drawn the attention of this Court
towards the earlier orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court dated 06.08.2021 and 31.03.2023 recorded on this
petition, which are as under.
" Order dated 06.08.2021 :
1. In the present group of writ petitions, the
petitioners are praying for extending the benefits
of the circular dated 16.07.2019 issued by the
Finance Department.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they
are in fact rendering services of full time
employees, though they were appointed as part
timers on a fixed monthly salary.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11846/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta
appearing for the petitioners has submitted that
the issue is squarely covered by the decision of
the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab
and Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others, (2017) 1
SCC 248. He has further submitted that after
considering the aforesaid judgment of the Apex
Court, the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide
judgment dated 21.12.2018 rendered in Special
Civil Application No.7462 of 2012 and allied
matters, while considering the policy of
outsourcing promulgated vide resolutions dated
10.02.2006 and 25.04.2012, has directed the State
Government to consider the cases for payment of
minimum wages in the last pay grade as
enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of
Jagjit Singh and Others (supra). The aforesaid
judgment was subject matter of challenge before
the Division Bench and the Division Bench vide
common order dated 09.05.2019 passed in Letters
Patent Appeal No.1155 of 2019 and allied matters
confirmed the view of the Coordinate Bench. He
has further submitted that thereafter the State
Government issued a resolution dated 16.07.2019,
extending the benefits of the judgments of this
Court to such part time employees/temporary ad
hoc employees. It was promulgated that such
employees would be granted the fixed pay of
Rs.14,800/- in the minimum pay scale of Class-IV
employees. It is the case of the present
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11846/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
petitioners that though their cases are squarely
covered by the said resolution, however, they are
not extended such benefits.
4. Learned AGP has submitted that for
extending the aforesaid benefits, the service of the
petitioners are required to be verified by the
concerned department and a proposal has to be
sent to the respondent - Finance Department, as
per the scheme of the resolution and accordingly,
if it is found that the petitioners are entitled,
such benefits will be extended.
5. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has
specifically observed that in fact the entire policy
of outsourcing, which was introduced with
resolutions dated 10.02.2006 and 25.04.2012, was
held to be illegal. Thus, after the judgments
rendered by this Court, it is not open for the
State Authorities to engage any employees by way
of outsourcing and even if they are engaged, they
would be entitled for the wages, as provided
under the resolution dated 16.07.2019.
7. In the considered opinion of this Court,
the present group of writ petitions can be
disposed of with a direction to the respondent-
Finance Department to examine the cases of the
present petitioners with regard to extending the
benefits of the resolution dated 16.07.2019. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11846/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
respondent-Finance Department is directed to call
for necessary details of all the petitioners from
the concerned departments within a period of
three weeks from the date of receipt of the
present order. The concerned departments are also
directed to cooperate and forward the details of
the present petitioners to the Finance Department
expeditiously within a period of two weeks
thereafter. The Finance Department is further
directed to examine each case of the petitioners
with regard to their service conditions and if they
are found eligible as per the judgment dated
21.12.2018 passed in Special Civil Application
No.7462 of 2012 and allied matters and order
dated 09.05.2019 passed in Letters Patent Appeal
No.1555 of 2019 and as per the resolution dated
16.07.2019, such benefits shall be extended to
them. The Finance Department is directed to pass
appropriate orders after receipt of the details of
the petitioners within a period of four weeks. It
is clarified that the Finance Department, while
examining each of the case of the petitioner, shall
specifically keep in mind that the entire policy of
outsourcing introduced vide Resolutions dated
10.02.2006 and 25.04.2012 has been declared
illegal. It is declared by this Court in the
aforementioned decisions that all such employees,
who are terminated or affected due to the said
policy, are to be reinstated and conferred the
benefit of minimum pay. Thus, the only factor,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11846/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
which is requires to be examined in the case of
the petitioners is that whether the policy of
outsourcing is/was detrimental to their service
conditions, including their termination or non-
conferring of minimum pay.
8. It is clarified that if any adverse decision
is taken against the present petitioners, it shall
be communicated to them and it would be open
for the petitioners to revive the present writ
petitions by filing a simple note before the
Registry."
Order dated 31.03.2023 :
1. The present matter is listed in view of
the note filed by the learned advocate for the
petitioner seeking revival of the writ petition
apropos the petitioner since the State Authority
has rejected his claim by the order dated
16.07.2022.
2. By the order dated 06.08.2021, the
captioned writ petition was disposed of by
directing the respondent authorities to examine
the case of the petitioner for the ground of wages
as per the resolution dated 16.07.2019. The Court
had reserved the liberty in favour of the
petitioner to revive this writ petition by filing a
simple note before the Registry in case any order
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11846/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
or decision is taken refusing to grant such benefit
arising out of the resolution dated 16.07.2019.
After the aforesaid order was passed, the State
Government has rejected the case of the of the
petitioner vide communication dated 08.02.2023.
3. Hence, in view of the liberty reserved in
favour of the petitioner, the captioned writ
petition is revived qua the petitioner. Registry is
directed to restore the writ petition to its original
file.
4. The note stands disposed of accordingly."
3.5 He has submitted that the decision of the
Coordinate Bench of this Court (learned Single Judge) dated
19.07.2022 recorded on Special Civil Application No.6852 of
2020 has been challenged by the State Government and
others before the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal
No.724 of 2023, wherein the Division Bench has disposed of
the said appeals by observing as under.
"33. For the above, the judgment and order
dated 19,.07.2022 of the learned Single Judge, in
the case of the writ petitioners - respondents
herein, is modified with the observation that the
issue with regard to the applicability of the
Circular / Government Resolution dated 16.07.2019
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11846/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
with regard to the part-time employees working
for less than four hours, is left open for
examination by this Court in an appropriate case.
The observations made by us hereinabove on the
opinion drawn by the learned Single Judge in
paragraph '17' of the judgment impugned that the
circular cannot be restricted to one category of
part-time employees, shall not be treated as a
binding precedent, inasmuch as, the issue of
interpretation of the contents of the Circular
dated 16.07.2019, has not arisen in the instant
case, in principle. It is further clarified that the
observations made hereinabove with regard to the
interpretation of the Circular dated 16.07.2019
was only an effort to arrive at a just decision in
the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
34. In view of the above, while modifying the
judgment and order dated 19.07.2022 passed by
the learned Single Judge in Special Civil
Application No.6852 of 2020 and allied matters, to
the above extent, with respect to the respondents
herein - writ petitioners, these bunch of appeals
are disposed of. In view of the disposal of the
main appeals, the connected Civil Applications
also stand disposed of."
3.6 He has submitted that in view of above chronology
of events, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefits under
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11846/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
the G.R. dated 16.07.2019 and the order impugned dated
08.02.2023 may be quashed.
4. Learned AGP Ms.Pooja Ashar has vehemently
opposed this petition. She has submitted that the petitioner
the petitioner is not working full time and he is a part-timer
and therefore, no benefit of full time employee should be
granted to the petitioner. She has fairly submitted that there
cannot be any dispute with regard to the orders passed by
the Coordinate Bench as well as Division Bench of this
Court. She has fairly submitted that the office order dated
08.02.2023 is passed before the judgment delivered in Letters
Patent Appeal No.724 of 2023 dated 11.08.2023, wherein the
Hon'ble Division Bench has held that each daily wager, who
is working for four hours, should be extended the benefits
under the G.R. dated 16.07.2019, and therefore, there can be
no infirmity in the order dated 08.02.2023. Therefore, in view
of subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.724 of 2023,
appropriate order may be passed.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made by
the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have
perused the documents available on record. From the record,
it transpires that the only question which falls for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11846/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
determination of this Court would be that whether the
benefits flowing from the G.R. dated 16.07.2019 should be
extended to the petitioner or not.
6.1 Looking to the chronology of events as well as the
observations made by this Court time and again noted above
and the submissions canvassed by the learned senior advocate
Mr.Mehta for the petitioner, this Court finds that the
petitioner is working as a part-timer. Further, time and
again, this Court has confirmed the object of the G.R. dated
16.07.2019, which is for the benefits of the part-timers.
Further, this Court has not denied the benefits to be given
to the part-times who are working for four and above hours.
Indisputably, the petitioner is working for four hours or
more. Therefore, in view of the settled legal position noted
above, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefits under the
G.R. dated 16.07.2019.
6.2 Consequently, the impugned order dated 08.02.2023
passed by the District Treasury Officer, Nadiad - respondent
No.2 needs to be quashed.
7. In view of above, this petition needs to be allowed
and is allowed accordingly. The impugned order dated
08.02.2023 passed by the respondent No.2 is hereby quashed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11846/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
and set aside. Consequently, it is held that the petitioner is
entitled to get the benefit of the G.R. dated 16.07.2019.
Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to extend
the benefits under the G.R. dated 16.07.2019 to the
petitioner. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
M.H. DAVE
