Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9037/2010 1/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9037 of 2010
=========================================================
MOHAMMAD
HANIF KASAMBHAI JAM & 1 - Petitioners
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondents
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
POOJA K DAVE for
Petitioners
MR NIRAG PATHAK, ASSTT.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondents.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
Date
: 10/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioners came to be appointed as part-timers in the Office of
respondent No.3 by orders dated 12.07.2000. An order came to be
passed on 29.03.2006 terminating the services of the petitioners on
the ground that the Government has adopted a policy of outsource
services. The said order was challenged before this Court by
preferring Special Civil Application No. 4355/2006 and allied
matters, which came to be disposed of by a CAV Judgment dated
18.09.2006, where, after considering all the relevant aspects, the
Court observed, Protection or injunction against termination of
service is denied with the clarification that it should not be
understood to mean that all the petitioners whose services are
required and who are presently in service, with or without an interim
injunction of the Court, have to be necessarily discharged
by the respondents.
2. The
petitioners again approached this Court with Special Civil
Application No.4266/2007 and allied matters, which came to be
disposed of by an oral order dated 15.02.2007, requiring the
respondent-authorities to consider the representation that the
petitioners made in light of the order passed by this Court in
Special Civil Application No. 7864/2006 and allied matters.
Thereafter, the respondent-authorities passed orders on 26.6.2007
holding that it was not possible to absorb the petitioners as
part-timers or full-timers and, therefore, their representation was
not accepted.
3. The
petitioners have approached this Court with the present petition,
making the following prayers:-
(I) That
this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order of direction, quashing and setting aside the
impugned order dt. 26.06.2007 passed by the respondents and further
be pleased to declare that the said order dt. 26.06.2007 is illegal,
arbitrary and erroneous and the same is bad in the eye of law.
(II) That
this Hon’ble Court be further pleased to direct the respondents to
re-consider the case of the petitioners as per the existing policy
and further be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the
present petitioners, considering the length of service they rendered
with continuity of their service;
(III) Pending
admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and
execution of order dt. 26.06.2007 and further direct the respondents
to reinstate the petitioners with continuity of service.
(IV) —– —–
(V) —– —– ——
4. Heard
learned advocate Ms.Pooja Dave for the petitioners.
5. The
petition should fail on the grounds that (i) the relief sought in the
petition against termination has already been adjudicated upon and
denied by a coordinate Bench of this Court by judgment dated
18.09.2006 in Special Civil Application Nos.4355/2006 and allied
matters, and (ii) the petitioners have approached this Court after an
unreasonable delay of more than three years. The petition, therefore,
stands dismissed.
[A.L.Dave,J.]
(patel)
Top