Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9553/1992 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9553 of 1992
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
LAXMIBEN
MANILAL ROHIT - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
SHAILESH C PARIKH for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
RULE NOT RECD BACK for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 30/04/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
By way of this
petition the petitioner has prayed to declare that the action of
the respondents in not allotting work to the petitioner and/ or
terminating the services of the petitioner orally with effect from
23.11.1992 is arbitrary, illegal, null and void and further to
direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as a cook and
to draw her salary as before.
The
brief facts of the case are as under
2.1 As
per the say of the petitioner, she was working as a cook in the
Government Women s hostel, Rajpipla from 4.2.1985. She was
terminated in 1988. She had filed writ petition before this Court.
Thereafter she was again employed in the year 1991. She was told by
the respondent to withdraw the petition pending before this court.
The said request was refused by the petitioner. She was also told to
give application under different name, to which also she refused and
as a result, she was not allotted any work though she is remaining
present. She was orally told that she cannot be allowed to work
unless she withdraws the petition pending before this Court. Hence
this petition.
Heard
learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the
documents on record.
The
respondent had filed their reply. From the record it revealed that
the petitioner was working as a daily wager for the contingency
arrangement with the respondent. The appointment of the petitioner
was made on contingency basis. In that view of the matter, the
petitioner was a daily wager. Therefore the, view taken by the
authority is just and proper. No case is made out to cause
interference. Hence petition stands disposed of . Rule is discharged
accordingly.
[K.S.Jhaveri,J.]
*Himansu
Top