Gujarat High Court

Nisarmiya Imammiya Gori vs State Of Gujarat on 22 September, 2025

                                                                                                                           NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/SCA/7177/2016                                                ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025

                                                                                                                            undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                       R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7177 of 2016

                       ==========================================================
                                                       NISARMIYA IMAMMIYA GORI
                                                                Versus
                                                       STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR HEM DAVE for MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner
                       MR PARTH PATEL, AGP for the Respondents
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                                                              Date : 22/09/2025

                                                                  ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner with

the following main prayers.

" 7. For the reasons stated herein above and such other as may be advanced at the time of hearing of this petition, the petitioner above named most respectfully prays that :-

(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction

(i) to direct the respondents to grant benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner and the petitioner be treated as permanent employee after completion of 10 years

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025

undefined

of service and be given all the benefits of permanent employee including regular pay-scale on the date the petitioner completed his 10 years of service;

(ii) to direct respondents to extend all the benefits of regular post with regular pay-scale in favour of the petitioner from the date he completed 10 years of service;

(iii) to direct respondents to pay difference of salary to the petitioner after placing the petitioner in pay-scale after completion of 10 years of service;

(iv) to direct respondents to pay salary to the petitioner after the date of award, i.e. 14.09.2010, till the date of actual reinstatement, i.e. 11.05.2015 by treating the petitioner as continuous in service from 1997 and accordingly, placing the petitioner in the pay-scale as per G.R. dated 17.10.1988;

(B) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately place the petitioner in regular pay-scale as per Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988; "

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025

undefined

2. Heard learned advocates.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Dave for the petitioner has

submitted that the Government is bound by its own policy

when G.R. dated 17.10.1988 has been made applicable to

respondents No.1 and 2, there is no reason for respondents

to deprive the petitioner of the said benefits; and that the

petitioner is not even paid minimum wages whereas his

juniors are drawing pay-scale; and that the petitioner, who

has put in continuous service from 1997 till date, could not

have been continued as daily wager by respondents; and that

the action of the respondents in continuing the petitioner as

daily wager for all these years is clearly violative of

fundamental rights of the petitioner; and that many juniors to the petitioner have been given benefit of pay-scale by

virtue of G.R. dated 17.10.1988; and that the persons who

have entered into service of respondents No.1 and 2 as daily

wagers even after petitioner's date of entry, i.e. after 1997,

have been conferred said benefit whereas petitioner has been

discriminated without any reason; and that admittedly, the

G.R. dated 17.10.1988 is applicable to respondent -

Department, respondent Nos.1 and 2 ought to have conferred

benefits of the said G.R. to the petitioner. He has relied

upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025

undefined

recorded on Letter Patent Appeal No.326 of 2025 dated

21.02.2025. He has submitted that this petition may be

allowed.

4. Per contra, learned AGP Mr.Patel for the State authorities has vehemently opposed this petition. He has

drawn the attention of this Court towards the affidavit in

reply filed by the respondent authorities and has submitted

that the petitioner was appointed as a daily wager driver

only for 6 hours; and that the benefits of the G.R. dated

17.10.1988 cannot be given to the petitioner because as per

the said G.R., the attendance, muster role are required to

count his attndance and as per required attendance in G.R.

dated 17.10.1988, the petitioner has to fulfill his total day of

work and total year; and that the petitioner was only

appointed for 6 hours, therefore, no muster role is required for the petitioner, because the G.R. dated 17.10.1988 is for a

daily wager who are working for whole day and there must

be completion of 240 days of five years in his service; and

that the petitioner has not shown any record or any proof

that the was working for whole day and worked for

minimum 240 days for five years; and that the petitioner

has not fulfilled the criteria of 240 days and five years as

mentioned in the G.R. dated 17.10.1988; and that there is no

record produced by the petitioner that the benefits under the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025

undefined

G.R. dated 17.10.1988 have been extended to the similarly

situated daily wagers. It is submitted that this petition may

be dismissed.

5.1 I have considered the rival submissions made by

the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have

perused the material available on record. From the record, it

transpires that, the petitioner is in service of respondent No.2

since 1997 as daily wager clerk, till date he has not been

conferred benefits of the Government Resolution dated

17.10.1988. The petitioner was illegally terminated by the

respondents authorities on 14.08.2002. Therefore, he has

raised industrial dispute before the appropriate authority,

which, in turn, culminated into Reference proceedings i.e.

Reference (LCG) No.8 of 2004 before the concerned Labour

Court, wherein the learned Labour Court has granted reinstatement to the petitioner, with continuity of service and

with 10% back wages vide award dated 14.09.2010 and

thereby quashed and set aside the action of terminating the

service of the petitioner illegal.

5.2 Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned

Labour Court, the State Authorities have approached this

Court by filing a petition being Special Civil Application

No.18344 of 2011, which was dismissed for non-prosecution

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025

undefined

vide order dated 23.12.2011. After a lapse of about 871 days,

an application for restoration being MCA (Stamp) No.1651 of

2014 was filed, along with an application for condonation of

delay being Civil Application No.9858 of 2014. In the said

application for condonation of delay, the Coordinate Bench of

this Court has dismissed that application with the following

observations on 17.09.2014, which are as under.

"22. Even after having succeeded in the reference proceeding before the learned Labour Court, the concerned workman is, for last 4 years, deprived of the fruits of legal proceeding in the Labour Court. The applicant - petitioner State has without any justification, not implemented and flouted the award passed by the learned Labour Court and without any order of stay against the operation of the award, the applicant - petitioner State has deprived the concerned workman of the result of the award.

23. Even in such case, the applicant - petitioner State did not take care to attend the proceeding of the petition, as a result of which the petition came to be dismissed for non- prosecution.

24. Actually, the concerned officer responsible for implementing award should be called upon to

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025

undefined

explain why the award has not been implemented though it is not interfered with and/or its operation is not stayed and he shou8ld also be asked to explain why the proceedings were neglected. This order shall be placed before the Collector for appropriate action.

25. In this view of the factual background, when the so-called reasons and circumstances mentioned by the applicant - petitioner State in present application are taken into account, then it would emerge that the applicant - petitioner State has failed to offer satisfactory explanation and has failed to make out sufficient cause to condone such inordinate delay of 871 days.

26. Furthermore, the applicant - petitioner State has not cared to implement the award passed by the learned Labour Court, though any relief, by way of any order against implementation and operation of the award, is not passed by the Court.

27. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the application does not deserve to be entertained.

28. The applicant, who has not implemented the award passed by the Court and has disregarded the same, does not deserve any relief,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025

undefined

more so when any explanation for delay is not offered and sufficient cause to condone delay is not made out. The application fails and is accordingly rejected."

5.3 Being aggrieved, the State Authorities have

preferred an appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No.27 of

2015 along with Civil Application for stay) No.343 of 2015

before the Division Bench of this Court, wherein the Division

Bench of this Court has dismissed the said appeal vide order

dated 19.01.2015, by observing as under.

"5. It is borne out that the appellant State had been very casual in complying with the orders of the Courts below. The respondent workman was deprived of the award passed by the Labour Court for a considerable period. Even the writ petition was dismissed for non- prosecution at the end of the appellant State. The learned Single Judge has taken note of such callous attitude by the State. We are in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge. The appeal lacks merit and therefore is accordingly dismissed. Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly."

5.4 Against which, the State Authorities have not

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025

undefined

preferred any appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court, as

reported.

5.5 In view of above, it transpires that the award

passed by the learned Labour Court dated 14.09.2010 has

attained finality and the award of reinstatement with

continuity and with 10% backwages was starring against the

State Authorities. Therefore, the petitioner was reinstated in

service by the authorities on 11.05.2015 as daily wager with

last drawn wage of Rs.1,035/-.

5.6 These are the undisputed facts and it is a matter

of record.

5.7 This Court finds that since the learned Labour

Court has granted continuity of service, the petitioner should be treated as continue in service and therefore, as such, he

has put in all about 18 years of service with the respondents

authorities. At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the

decision of the Division Bench of this Court recorded on

Letters Patent Appeal No.326 of 2025 dated 21.02.2025,

wherein the Division Bench of this Court has observed as

under.

"7. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. The learned

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025

undefined

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025

undefined

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:

"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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025

undefined

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





                                                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/SCA/7177/2016                                   ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025

                                                                                                                 undefined

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 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.






                                                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/SCA/7177/2016                                              ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025

                                                                                                                             undefined




                                                             •        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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025

undefined

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025

undefined

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 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."

5.8 In view of the undisputed facts, submissions

canvassed and observations made by the Division Bench of

this Court noted above as well as the demeanor of the

respondents authorities, this petition needs to be considered.

6. For the reasons recorded above, the following order

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/7177/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025

undefined

is passed.

6.1 This petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to

the aforesaid extent.