IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 2908 of 1985
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
————————————————————–
RASIKLAL MATHURBHAI GURJAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
————————————————————–
Appearance:
MR BB OZA for Petitioner
Mr. M.R.Rawal, instructed by M/S MG DOSHIT & CO.
for respondent no. 1.
SERVED for Respondent No. 3, 4
————————————————————–
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
Date of decision: 07/02/97
ORAL JUDGEMENT
This petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution challenges the order of termination of the
petitioner who was a work charged clerk in Narmada
Project colony circle which is a part of Narmada and
Water Resources Department (previously known as
Irrigation Department) in the State.
2.It has been averred in the petition that
the petitioner was appointed as a workcharged clerk under
the respondent on June 21,1978. The petitioner was
transferred during the course of service and had complied
with the transfer orders. However, the petitioner was
served with an order dated March 15,1985 declaring him to
be surplus and relieving him from service from April
1,1985.
3.On behalf of the petitioner, learned
advocate Mr. Oza has submitted that there were several
juniors to the petitioner who were continued as
work-charged clerks. The names of about 11 such junior
employees are given in para 7 of the petition. They were
working as work-charged clerks in the same sub-division
where the petitioner was employed. It is, therefore,
submitted that termination of the petitioner’s service
was arbitrary and in violation of his fundamental rights
under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
4.The respondents were earlier heard when
the petition was admitted and they were also heard for
interim relief. In fact, the learned counsel for the
respondents had then stated that the petitioner was
posted at a particular place in Kevadia colony, as per
order no. 423 dated April 1,1985 but the petitioner had
failed to report for duty. The petitioner’s contention
at that time was that he was not given any orders for his
transfer and that he was not allowed to work. By the
order dated June 3,1985 this court had, therefore,
directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to work
at the place specified in the above order.
5.When the petition came up for hearing
earlier on January 30,1997, Mr. M.R. Rawal, learned
A.G.P. had taken adjournment for taking instructions
from the respondents, since no affidavit in reply was
filed till this date. Today also, the matter is called
out, but no affidavit in reply is filed. There is,
therefore, no reason to disbelieve the petitioner who has
stated on oath that persons junior to him have been
continued in service. In fact, the respondents
themselves had stated before this Court in 1985 that the
petitioner was continued in service by virtue of the
order dated April 1,1985.
6.It is also required to be noted that
after filing of the petition, the State Government has
passed a Government Resolution dated October 17,1988 on
the basis of recommendations of the Dolatbhai Parmar
Committee which was appointed to go into the question of
benefits to be given to daily wager employees. The
committee had made recommendations in favour of daily
wager employees depending upon length of service that
they had put in. The category of work-charged employees
has been treated on higher footing than daily wager
employees. The petitioner was a work-charged clerk who
was recruited in June 1978. Thus, by now the petitioner
has completed almost 19 years of service. The persons
junior to the petitioner have been continued in service.
Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated March
8,1985 declaring the petitioner as surplus is quashed and
set aside. On behalf of the petitioner, it is stated
that the petitioner will continue to render his service
at whichever place the petitioner is posted.
7.In view of the above discussion, the
petition is allowed. The order dated March 8,1985
declaring the petitioner as surplus is quashed and set
aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall
be no order as to costs.
darji
***